R. v. W., Phillip
The conviction was upheld because the complainant's account was plausible and consistent with the evidence, the trial judge's credibility findings were supportable, and the appellant failed to show the verdict was unreasonable or the events were mechanically impossible.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C39727
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Philip W.
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 1 December 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld
- Legal Topics
- Unreasonable Verdict, Credibility Assessment, Sufficiency of Evidence, Awakening During Assault
- 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
Philip W.
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the verdict was unreasonable
- 2 Whether the events as testified were mechanically impossible
- 3 Whether preliminary events would have necessarily awakened the complainant
Ratio Decidendi
The conviction was upheld because the complainant's account was plausible and consistent with the evidence, the trial judge's credibility findings were supportable, and the appellant failed to show the verdict was unreasonable or the events were mechanically impossible.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. W., Phillip Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2004-12-01 Docket numbers C39727 Judges Rosenberg, Marc; Feldman, Kathryn N.; Simmons, Janet M. Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20041201 DOCKET: C39727 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – PHILIP W. (Appellant) BEFORE: ROSENBERG, FELDMAN and SIMMONS JJ.A. COUNSEL: James Morton for the appellant Eliott Behar for the respondent HEARD & ENDORSED: November 26, 2004 n appeal from conviction by Justice Fern M. Weinper of the Ontario Court of Justice dated January 6, 2003 APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant submits that the verdict was unreasonable based on two arguments: 1. That mechanically the events as testified to by the complainant could not have occurred; and 2. that the preliminary events could not have happened without the complainant having awakened. [2] The appellant particularly relies on this second aspect of the evidence. [3] In our view, this conviction was not unreasonable. The story told by the complainant was not implausible. It was possible for the events to have occurred as found by the trial judge especially given that the complainant had been drinking before she fell asleep. [4] As to the mechanics of the incident, the trial judge reviewed the evidence; she was satisfied that a sexual assault occurred. Much of the complainant’s version was in fact consistent with the appellant’s own evidence. We have not been persuaded that the position of the parties as testified to by the complainant were so implausible that a finding that a sexual assault occurred was unreasonable. [5] Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.