Toronto Criminal Lawyer

Sexual Interference — Toronto Sex Crimes Lawyer

Client:  N.K., Accused
Complainant:  friend of his young son
Charges:  invitation to sexual touching; sexual interference (2x)

The Queen v. N.K.
Ontario Court of Justice, Oakville
Judge Sharpe
(acquitted: 25 November 1996)

Crown:  J. Mungovan, Assistant Crown Attorney, Oakville
Defence:  Craig Penney, Toronto Criminal Lawyer, Oakville

¶ 1   COURT:  The evidence of the complainant in this matter is that he was touched by you on the buttocks and that you rubbed the back of his legs once during the evening. It is noted that any touching was over the blanket that covered the complainant. The complainant said at first it was a sleeping bag and then a blanket and then the complainant said he didn't remember whether it was a sleeping bag or a blanket. The complainant can't remember if you pulled the sleeping bag up to cover his back or chest.

¶ 2   The second incident of touching that took place the complainant indicated that you put his arm between your legs, that it was not on your thighs, but on cross-examination it appeared to the Court that you were merely attempting to get the complainant to go to sleep and the complainant's evidence on cross-examination was not that you had squeezed his arm between your legs but at the time described the arm was placed on top of your thighs while you were in a kneeling position.

¶ 3   This evidence is not strictly consistent only with sexual intention and inconsistent with any other rational conclusion. The evidence is somewhat unreliable and your actions perhaps have been misinterpreted by the young boy.

¶ 4   This Court, being a court of criminal jurisdiction, has to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the touching was for a sexual purpose.

¶ 5   The Court cannot come to that conclusion. The charges are dismissed.

¶ 6   The other count?

¶ 7   CROWN:  Withdrawn, please.

¶ 8   THE COURT:  Count number two is withdrawn at the request of the Crown.