R. v. A.W.H.

R. v. A.W.H.

On the facts the court found the alleged offence occurred in September/October 2014 and that the 16 month period to the February 12, 2016 videotaped interview was reasonable given the child's age, incremental disclosure, recurrent themes of fear and secrecy, intervening therapy without evidence of suggestion, the mother's non‑leading conduct, and absence of evidence of undue influence; therefore the videotape met the s.715.1 reliability requirement and was admissible.

Citation
2016 NSPC 69
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: A. W. H.
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire (s.715.1 Application)
Outcome
Crown application allowed; videotaped interview admitted into evidence
Legal Topics
Section 715.1, Hearsay, Admissibility, Reasonable Time, Child Witness, Reliability, Sexual Offences
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Child Sexual Abuse Procedural Law Section 715.1 Hearsay Admissibility Reasonable Time +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

A. W. H.

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire (s.715.1 Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the February 12, 2016 videotaped statement was made within a reasonable time after the alleged offence for the purposes of s.715.1 Criminal Code
  2. 2 When the alleged offence occurred for purposes of calculating delay
  3. 3 Whether the 16 month delay undermines the reliability rationale for s.715.1 admissibility

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts the court found the alleged offence occurred in September/October 2014 and that the 16 month period to the February 12, 2016 videotaped interview was reasonable given the child's age, incremental disclosure, recurrent themes of fear and secrecy, intervening therapy without evidence of suggestion, the mother's non‑leading conduct, and absence of evidence of undue influence; therefore the videotape met the s.715.1 reliability requirement and was admissible.

Court Disposition

Crown application allowed; videotaped interview admitted into evidence

Orders

  • Videotaped interview of February 12, 2016 admitted into evidence pursuant to s.715.1 Criminal Code
  • Publication restriction noted pursuant to s.486.4 Criminal Code