R. v. Hollingshead
The jury charge and caution against propensity were adequate in context; the trial judge did not err in presenting the defence or commenting on collusion as it related to credibility; the conviction was upheld; the sentence was not unfit but must be reduced by one month to account for conceded pre-sentence custody...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C37974
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Paul Hollingshead
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 17 April 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
- Outcome
- Conviction appeal dismissed; leave to appeal sentence granted in part; global sentence reduced by one month.
- Legal Topics
- Propensity Evidence, Jury Instructions, Collusion, Credibility, Pre Sentence Custody Credit, Sentence Fitness
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Paul Hollingshead
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the jury charge adequately warned against using evidence from one count to prove another
- 2 Whether the trial judge erred by permitting propensity reasoning or failing to adequately warn against it
- 3 Whether the trial judge erred in commenting on alleged collusion and presenting the defence theory
Ratio Decidendi
The jury charge and caution against propensity were adequate in context; the trial judge did not err in presenting the defence or commenting on collusion as it related to credibility; the conviction was upheld; the sentence was not unfit but must be reduced by one month to account for conceded pre-sentence custody credit.
Court Disposition
Conviction appeal dismissed; leave to appeal sentence granted in part; global sentence reduced by one month.
Orders
- Conviction appeal dismissed.
- Leave to appeal sentence granted and global sentence reduced by one month to reflect pre-sentence custody credit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Hollingshead Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2003-04-17 Docket numbers C37974 Judges Carthy, James Joseph; Goudge, Stephen Thomas; Gillese, Eileen E. Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20030417 DOCKET:C37974 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) and PAUL HOLLINGSHEAD (Appellant) BEFORE: CARTHY, GOUDGE AND GILLESE JJ.A. COUNSEL: Tanya Kranjc For the appellant Laura Hodgson For the respondent HEARD: March 27, 2003 On appeal from the conviction by Justice Paul Hermiston dated October 25, 2001 and on appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice Paul Hermiston dated November 9, 2001. ENDORSEMENT Released Orally March 27, 2003 [1] In our view the charge was adequate to warn the jury that they could not use evidence relating to one count in their evaluation of another count. This encompasses counts each supported by the evidence of a different complainant. [2] As to propensity, it would have been preferable for the trial judge to clearly warn against reasoning on the basis that the appellant was the kind of person who would have committed the offences charged. However, he did caution the jury that they could not find that because the appellant did one thing he must have done the other. In this case that was adequate, particularly given that there were only two complainants and no evidence of non-criminal disreputable conduct. [3] Secondly, the trial judge adequately put the theory of the defence and did not err in commenting on his view of whether the witnesses had colluded. The jury would not have misunderstood because this issue could have been relevant to them only for credibility purposes. [4] As to the sentence, the Crown concedes that the appellant should get credit for one month due to his post-conviction, pre-sentence time in custody. Apart from that we would dismiss the sentence appeal. It was open to the trial judge to find that all incidents alleged had been proven and to sentence on that basis. The sentence imposed is not unfit. This was a case where the complainants were either to be believed or not as to their evidence about all the incidents alleged. In our view, the jury's verdict can only be taken as their finding that all incidents were sufficiently established. [5] The conviction appeal is therefore dismissed. Leave to appeal sentence is granted and the global sentence is reduced by one month. "J.J. Carthy J.A." "S.T. Goudge J.A." "G.G. Gillese J.A."