R. v. Fearon
Because the trial judge failed to address and resolve specific, material points in the Crown's evidence that undermined the complainant's credibility (notably timing of crying and evidence of prior friendly contact), his reasons were inadequate; therefore the conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C42405
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Richard Craig Fearon
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 17 January 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence (ontario Court of Justice) to Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; new trial ordered.
- Legal Topics
- Credibility Findings, Adequacy of Reasons, New Trial, Conviction Set Aside
- 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
Richard Craig Fearon
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence (ontario Court of Justice) to Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge provided adequate reasons addressing material conflicting evidence
- 2 Whether the trial judge properly resolved credibility issues central to the Crown case
- 3 Whether inadequate reasons warrant setting aside the conviction and ordering a new trial
Ratio Decidendi
Because the trial judge failed to address and resolve specific, material points in the Crown's evidence that undermined the complainant's credibility (notably timing of crying and evidence of prior friendly contact), his reasons were inadequate; therefore the conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; new trial ordered.
Orders
- Appeal allowed.
- Conviction set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Fearon Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2006-01-17 Docket numbers C42405 Judges Doherty, David H.; Sharpe, Robert J.; Juriansz, Russell G. Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20060117 DOCKET: C42405 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – FEARON, RICHARD CRAIG (Appellant) BEFORE: DOHERTY, SHARPE and JURIANSZ JJ.A. COUNSEL: Christopher Hicks for the appellant Roger A. Pinnock for the respondent HEARD & RELEASED ORALLY: January 13, 2006 On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice J.J. Belobradic of the Ontario Court of Justice on May 13, 2004, and the sentence imposed on May 27, 2004. ENDORSEMENT [1] The trial judge’s reasons are inadequate and fail to articulate a satisfactory basis for this conviction for sexual assault. As the trial judge noted, the complainant’s credibility was the central issue. However, the trial judge failed to deal with crucial points undermining the complainant’s evidence. The trial judge identified, as an important point of contention, the timing as to when the complainant started to cry after returning from her encounter with the appellant. If, as Ms. Martin testified, the complainant only started to cry after Ms. Martin confronted her about why she had been gone so long, that was evidence supporting the defence’s position that the sex had been consensual. Although the trial judge stated this was a point needing consideration, he never resolved it. Nor did he deal with the evidence suggesting that the complainant and the appellant had been on friendlier terms than the complainant was prepared to admit, including evidence that she had visited him and spoke to him on the phone many times. [2] These contentious points, found in the evidence adduced by the Crown, should have been addressed and resolved by the trial judge to explain why he accepted the complainant’s version. In the absence of any explanation in the trial judge’s reasons as to what he did or did not accept as to these contentious points, the appellant is left in the position of not having an adequate explanation of the reason for his conviction. [3] Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the conviction is set aside and a new trial is ordered. “D. Doherty J.A.” “R. Sharpe J.A.” “R. Juriansz J.A.”