R. v. Booth
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge assessed the evidence with appropriate caution, provided reasons adequate for appellate review, and his rejection of O'Sullivan's evidence was sufficient in context, so there was no legal error warranting reversal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2007 ONCA 97
- Parties
- Appellant: RICHARD BOOTH; Respondent: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 14 February 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.
- Legal Topics
- Witness Credibility, Reasons for Judgment, Appellate Deference, Conviction Affirmation
- 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
RICHARD BOOTH
Appellant
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge failed to appreciate motives of unsavoury witnesses to fabricate
- 2 Whether the reasons for judgment were insufficient for meaningful appellate review
- 3 Whether the trial judge's rejection of O'Sullivan's evidence was adequate
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge assessed the evidence with appropriate caution, provided reasons adequate for appellate review, and his rejection of O'Sullivan's evidence was sufficient in context, so there was no legal error warranting reversal.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Conviction and sentence upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Booth Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2007-02-14 Neutral citation 2007 ONCA 97 Docket numbers C44103 Judges Goudge, Stephen Thomas; Lang, Susan Elizabeth; MacFarland, Jean Louise Subject Criminal Decision Content CITAION: R. v. Booth, 2007 ONCA 97 DATE: 20070214 DOCKET: C44103 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – RICHARD BOOTH (Appellant) BEFORE: GOUDGE, LANG AND MACFARLAND JJ.A. COUNSEL: Leslie Maunder for the appellant Amanda Rubaszek for the respondent HEARD & RELEASED ORALLY: February 6, 2007 On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice Richard G. Byers of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 13, 2005 and from the sentence imposed by Justice Byers dated June 17, 2005. ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant raises three issues. [2] First, he says the trial judge failed to appreciate the unsavoury witnesses’ motives to fabricate. We do not agree. The trial judge was alive to the need to view their evidence with caution. He articulates why nonetheless he accepts their evidence. While he does not explicitly address some of the factors that raise the need for caution, this was a judge alone trial, and we are satisfied that he considered their evidence with the appropriate caution. [3] Second, the appellant says that the reasons for judgment are insufficient. Again, we disagree. While the reasons could have been more complete, these reasons are more than adequate for meaningful appellate review. It is clear why the appellant was convicted. The findings of fact, although cryptic, suggest no error of law, and there is no other basis to displace the presumption that trial judges know the law. Nor were more detailed findings of fact needed to resolve any conflicts on the evidence. The reasons do not leave the appellant in any doubt about why he was convicted. [4] Finally, the trial judge’s rejection of O’Sullivan’s evidence, although conclusory, is sufficient in these circumstances, given his other findings. [5] The appeal must be dismissed. “S.T. Goudge J.A.” “S.E. Lang J.A.” “J. MacFarland J.A.”