R. v. H. (N.G.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 318
Her Majesty The Queen Appellant
v.
N.G.H. Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. H. (N.G.)
File No.: 25705.
1998: February 27.
Present: L’Heureux‑Dubé, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia
Criminal law ‑‑ Evidence ‑‑ Witnesses ‑‑ Credibility ‑‑ Testimony of complainant containing evidence on which finding of guilt could be properly based ‑‑ Verdict not unreasonable ‑‑ Conviction restored.
APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (1996), 83 B.C.A.C. 45, 136 W.A.C. 45, [1996] B.C.J. No. 3108 (QL), allowing the accused’s appeal from his conviction by Collver J., [1995] B.C.J. No. 269 (QL), on charges of indecent assault and gross indecency and ordering a new trial. Appeal allowed and conviction restored. Cross-appeal dismissed.
Wendy Rubin, for the appellant.
M. Kevin Woodall and Susan M. Coristine, for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
1 Cory J. ‑‑ On our review and analysis of the evidence we find that the British Columbia Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence. There was evidence in the testimony of L.E. upon which the finding of guilt could be properly based.
2 Much of this case turned on credibility on which the trial judge properly made clear findings particularly in accepting the complainant’s testimony and rejecting that of the accused.
3 The appeal is therefore allowed. We agree with the British Columbia Court of Appeal that the verdict was not unreasonable and the cross‑appeal is therefore dismissed.
4 The order of the British Columbia Court of Appeal is set aside and the conviction is restored.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitor for the appellant: The Ministry of the Attorney General, Vancouver.
Solicitors for the respondent: Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy, Vancouver; Crossin & Scouten, Vancouver.
Email this Content