R. v. M. (W.H.)
- Citation
- [1992] 1 SCR 984
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 27 April 1992
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada; Final Judgment (appeal Dismissed)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 27 April 1992
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada; Final Judgment (appeal Dismissed)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge made no error of law in applying the standard of proof, properly considered the evidence and reasonably assessed the credibility of the child witness; appellate interference is unwarranted absent demonstrable error.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; acquittal of the respondent upheld.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
02
Material facts
Parties
Her Majesty The Queen
Appellant Counsel: Darrell E. CoombsW.H.M.
Respondent Counsel: John W. Hennessey03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada; Final Judgment (appeal Dismissed)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the trial judge applied the correct standard of proof
- 02
Whether the trial judge properly considered the evidence
- 03
Whether the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of a child witness
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Crown submitted that the trial judge erred in law in applying the standard of proof, failed to properly consider the evidence and misassessed the credibility of the child witness, warranting appellate intervention against the acquittal.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintained that the trial judge applied the correct legal standard, properly assessed the evidence and credibility of the child witness, and that there was no basis for disturbing the acquittal on appeal.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Supreme Court of Canada judgment in R. v. M. (W.H.) [1992] 1 S.C.R. 984
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- 02
Supreme Court of Canada judgment in R. v. M. (W.H.) [1992] 1 S.C.R. 984
Appellate courts must defer to trial judges on assessments of witness credibility absent an identifiable error of law or palpable and overriding error in fact finding.
- 03
Supreme Court of Canada judgment in R. v. M. (W.H.) [1992] 1 S.C.R. 984
An appeal will only succeed if there is an error of law, a misapprehension of evidence or a palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's reasoning.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge made no error of law in applying the standard of proof, properly considered the evidence and reasonably assessed the credibility of the child witness; appellate interference is unwarranted absent demonstrable error.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; acquittal of the respondent upheld.
- Appeal dismissed
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 27 April 1992
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 27 April 1992
R. v. M. (W.H.) Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1992-04-27 Report [1992] 1 SCR 984 Case number 22285 Judges La Forest, Gérard V.; Sopinka, John; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; Cory, Peter deCarteret; McLachlin, Beverley; Stevenson, William; Iacobucci, Frank On appeal from Prince Edward Island Subjects Criminal law Notes SCC Case Information: 22285 Decision Content R. v. M. (W.H.), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 984 Her Majesty The Queen Appellant v. W.H.M. Respondent Indexed as: R. v. M. (W.H.) File No.: 22285. 1992: April 27. Present: La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci JJ. on appeal from the prince edward island supreme court, appeal division Criminal law ‑‑ Evidence ‑‑ Charge of sexually assaulting child ‑‑ Standard of proof ‑‑ Child witness ‑‑ Credibility. APPEAL from a judgment of the Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Appeal Division (1990), 87 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 339, 271 A.P.R. 339, dismissing the Crown's appeal from the accused's acquittal by the Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Trial Division (1990), 82 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 285, 257 A.P.R. 285, on charges of indecent assault and sexual assault. Appeal dismissed. Darrell E. Coombs, for the appellant. John W. Hennessey, for the respondent. //La Forest J.// The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by La Forest J. ‑‑ It will not be necessary to hear from you Mr. Hennessey. The Court is ready to
hand down judgment. The judgment will be pronounced by Mr. Justice Iacobucci. //Iacobucci J.// Iacobucci J. ‑‑ This appeal comes to us as of right. We are all of the view that the appeal should be dismissed. We agree with the conclusions of the majority of the Appeal Division of the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island that the trial judge made no error of law with respect to the standard of proof he applied, the proper consideration of the evidence before him, and the issue of credibility of a child witness. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Judgment accordingly. Solicitor for the appellant: The Attorney General of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown. Solicitors for the respondent: Foster, O'Keefe, Charlottetown.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.