R. v. Millington
- Citation
- 2015 BCSC 515
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 20 February 2015
- Posture
- Criminal Perjury / Trial Judgment (conviction)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 20 February 2015
- Posture
- Criminal Perjury / Trial Judgment (conviction)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court convicted on Count 1 because, on all the evidence (most importantly the unaltered Pritchard video, contemporaneous notes, Taser data and the pattern of identical errors in officers' IHIT statements), the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knowingly gave false testimony on averments 1,2,3,4,8 and 9 with intent to mislead; corroboration under s.133 was unnecessary because the case was based on circumstantial and documentary/video evidence and the only rational inference from the similarity of officers' false accounts was prior discussion.
Court disposition
Convicted of perjury (Count 1)
Orders
- Convicted on Count 1 for perjury (testimony March 2-4, 2009)
- Court finds averments 1,2,3,4,8 and 9 proven beyond a reasonable doubt
- Averments 5,6,7 and 10 not proven (reasonable doubt)
- Sentencing to be scheduled (no sentence recorded in reasons)
02
Material facts
Parties
Regina
Crown Counsel: E.V. Gottardi, S.M. Fenton, T.C. PaisanaKwesi Millington
Accused Counsel: R.R. Hira, Q.C., S.M.R. ConroyAmounts and remedies
- Averments Proven: 6
- Averments Not Proven: 4
- Taser Deployments Recorded: 5
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Perjury / Trial Judgment (conviction)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether accused committed perjury in his Braidwood Inquiry testimony
- 02
Whether the Crown proved falsity, knowledge of falsity, and intent to mislead beyond a reasonable doubt
- 03
Whether corroboration under s.133 was required
- 04
Whether similarities in officers' statements arise from collusion or coincidence
- 05
Reliability and primacy of the Pritchard video as evidence
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Crown: The accused's Inquiry testimony materially conflicted with the Pritchard video and his contemporaneous notes; circumstantial evidence and the strikingly similar false statements of the other officers support inferences of knowledge and intent to mislead; corroboration under s.133 not required because case is circumstantial; at least one averment proven beyond reasonable doubt.
- Respondent
- Defence: Accused was honestly mistaken, influenced by training and fast-moving circumstances; other witnesses also erred so misperception is plausible; no motive to lie; meeting alleged by Crown (Averment 10) not proven; some Taser timing data qualified.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Calder v. The Queen; Criminal Code ss.131-132
Elements of perjury: false statement under oath, knowledge of falsity, intent to mislead
- 02
R. v. W.(D.)
Standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt; accused benefits from presumption of innocence
- 03
Criminal Code s.133; R. v. Reyat; O'Kane
Corroboration under s.133 is evidentiary, not an essential element; not required where case is circumstantial
- 04
R. v. Nikolovski
Videotape that is unaltered is admissible and may be decisive evidence of events
- 05
R. v. Griffin
In circumstantial cases the only rational inference standard applies
- 06
R. v. U. (F.J.)
Where multiple declarants make strikingly similar false statements, permissible inferences include collusion or communication between them
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court convicted on Count 1 because, on all the evidence (most importantly the unaltered Pritchard video, contemporaneous notes, Taser data and the pattern of identical errors in officers' IHIT statements), the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knowingly gave false testimony on averments 1,2,3,4,8 and 9 with intent to mislead; corroboration under s.133 was unnecessary because the case was based on circumstantial and documentary/video evidence and the only rational inference from the similarity of officers' false accounts was prior discussion.
Obiter and limits
- Expert opinion that relied on officers' accounts risked circularity and limited probative value
- Taser download timing evidence required careful qualification (rounded durations)
- Motive is not an essential element of perjury but is a relevant factor in assessing circumstantial inferences
Court disposition
Convicted of perjury (Count 1)
- Convicted on Count 1 for perjury (testimony March 2-4, 2009)
- Court finds averments 1,2,3,4,8 and 9 proven beyond a reasonable doubt
- Averments 5,6,7 and 10 not proven (reasonable doubt)
- Sentencing to be scheduled (no sentence recorded in reasons)
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of British Columbia · 20 February 2015
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.
Full judgment text is not available for this record.
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.