SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Between:
Andrew Donald Gulliver
Appellant
and
Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent
Coram: Abella, Moldaver, Gascon, Brown and Rowe JJ.
| Reasons for Judgment: (paras. 1 to 2) |
Rowe J. (Abella, Moldaver, Gascon and Brown JJ. concurring) |
R. v. Gulliver, 2018 SCC 24, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 694
Andrew Donald Gulliver Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. Gulliver
2018 SCC 24
File No.: 37917.
2018: May 18.
Present: Abella, Moldaver, Gascon, Brown and Rowe JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for alberta
Criminal law — Trial — Judgments — Reasons for judgment — Sufficiency of reasons — Accused convicted of several charges including sexual assault — Court of Appeal holding that trial judge provided adequate explanation of reasoning process — Convictions upheld.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal (Berger, Wakeling and Martin JJ.A.), 2017 ABCA 223, [2017] A.J. No. 1006 (QL), 2017 CarswellAlta 1756 (WL Can.), affirming the convictions of the accused. Appeal dismissed.
Peter J. Royal, Q.C., and David N. B. Sims, for the appellant.
Troy Couillard, for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
[1] Rowe J. — We all agree that, read fairly, the trial judge’s reasons make clear that the alibi evidence was neither credible nor reliable. We are also of the view that the trial judge’s reasons were sufficient.
[2] Accordingly, we are all of the view that the appeal should be dismissed.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Royal & Company, Edmonton.
Solicitor for the respondent: Attorney General of Alberta, Edmonton.
Email this Content