R. v. Dill

R. v. Dill

The Crown failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt because the complainant's late and inconsistent disclosure (notably the tent encounters), the absence of expected corroborative physical, electronic or witness evidence, and other testimonial deficits rendered the complainant's account not credible on balance; demeanour alone could not cure these deficits and reasonable doubt therefore exists.

Citation
2011 NSPC 96
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Ryan Gregory Dill
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Provincial Court Trial — Verdict Delivered (acquittal on Most Counts)
Outcome
Accused found not guilty of all charged offences except case number 2115405 (careless storage); the careless-storage matter to be dealt with separately.
Legal Topics
Sexual Assault, Sexual Touching, Consent, Credibility of Complainant, Reasonable Doubt, Disclosure of Evidence, Alibi, Intimidation, Threats, Careless Storage
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Evidence Bail and Bail Conditions Youth Witness Testimony Sexual Assault Sexual Touching Consent +7 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Ryan Gregory Dill

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Provincial Court Trial — Verdict Delivered (acquittal on Most Counts)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown proved the offences beyond a reasonable doubt
  2. 2 Assessment of the credibility and reliability of the youthful complainant
  3. 3 Impact of late-disclosed testimony on disclosure obligations and fairness

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt because the complainant's late and inconsistent disclosure (notably the tent encounters), the absence of expected corroborative physical, electronic or witness evidence, and other testimonial deficits rendered the complainant's account not credible on balance; demeanour alone could not cure these deficits and reasonable doubt therefore exists.

Court Disposition

Accused found not guilty of all charged offences except case number 2115405 (careless storage); the careless-storage matter to be dealt with separately.

Orders

  • Verdicts: NOT GUILTY on all charges listed in the indictment except case number 2115405 (careless storage)
  • Court to hear submissions and resolve the careless-storage charge (case number 2115405) following a brief recess or by change of plea as agreed by counsel