R, v, Crowe

R, v, Crowe

The judge accepted the complainant's testimony as credible and corroborated by scene photographs and SANE forensic findings, rejected the accused's account as fabricated to explain DNA, applied W(D) and Lifchus standards, and concluded the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed sexual assault causing bodily harm (s.272(2)(b)) and unlawful confinement (s.279(2)) and the probation/recognizance breaches, but not the isolated attempted kissing charge (s.271(1)(a)).

Citation
2012 NSSC 175
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Robert Thomas Crowe
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Verdict (trial)
Outcome
Convicted of sexual assault causing bodily harm (s.272(2)(b) C.C.C.), unlawful confinement (s.279(2) C.C.C.), and breaches of probation and recognizance (s.733.1(1)(a); ss.810 and 811 C.C.C.); Acquitted of sexual assault charge under s.271(1)(a) C.C.C.
Legal Topics
Sexual Assault, Unlawful Confinement, Probation Breach, Recognizance Breach, Credibility Assessment (w(d)), Forensic and SANE Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Evidence Sexual Assault Unlawful Confinement Probation Breach Recognizance Breach Credibility Assessment (w(d)) +1 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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Robert Thomas Crowe

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Verdict (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused committed sexual assault causing bodily harm contrary to s.272(2)(b) C.C.C.
  2. 2 Whether the accused committed sexual assault contrary to s.271(1)(a) C.C.C. (attempted kissing episode)
  3. 3 Whether the accused unlawfully confined the complainant contrary to s.279(2) C.C.C.

Ratio Decidendi

The judge accepted the complainant's testimony as credible and corroborated by scene photographs and SANE forensic findings, rejected the accused's account as fabricated to explain DNA, applied W(D) and Lifchus standards, and concluded the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed sexual assault causing bodily harm (s.272(2)(b)) and unlawful confinement (s.279(2)) and the probation/recognizance breaches, but not the isolated attempted kissing charge (s.271(1)(a)).

Court Disposition

Convicted of sexual assault causing bodily harm (s.272(2)(b) C.C.C.), unlawful confinement (s.279(2) C.C.C.), and breaches of probation and recognizance (s.733.1(1)(a); ss.810 and 811 C.C.C.); Acquitted of sexual assault charge under s.271(1)(a) C.C.C.

Orders

  • Found guilty of sexual assault causing bodily harm contrary to s.272(2)(b) C.C.C.
  • Found guilty of unlawful confinement contrary to s.279(2) C.C.C.