Toronto Criminal Lawyer

Domestic Assault — Toronto Criminal Lawyer

Client:  D.R., Accused
Complainant:  his spouse
Charge:  assault

The Queen v. D.R.
Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto
Judge Greene
(acquitted: 8 August 2011)

Crown:   D. Boulet, Office of the Crown Attorney, Toronto
Defence:  Craig Penney, Criminal Defence Lawyer, Toronto Domestic

¶ 1   MR PENNEY:  Mr. R., can you come forward, please?

¶ 2   CROWN:  I know that Mr. R. testified, but I'm prepared to make my submissions first, Your Honour.

¶ 3   THE COURT  Okay.

¶ 4   CROWN:  And Your Honour will recall the evidence of both [the complainant] and Mr. R., and I'm mindful of the test that the Crown has to meet in D.W. from the Supreme Court, with regard to a case where credibility is the issue, and Mr. R. has testified. It's a fairly high test, especially considering that, of course, I'm required to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, and even if Your Honour would be of a mind that the version of events that [the complainant] provided probably happened, it still isn't enough. And on that basis, I don't think in all honesty I can tell the Court or make submissions to the Court that that test has been made.

¶ 5   THE COURT:  Thank you, Mr Boulet. That was very helpful and I appreciate that you're acting in the true spirit of the Crown, so I appreciate that, Mr Boulet.

¶ 6   CROWN:  Thank you, Your Honour.

¶ 7   THE COURT:  I don't need to hear from you, counsel.

¶ 8   MR PENNEY:  Thank you, Your Honour.

¶ 9   THE COURT:  My reasons are going to be very short because of Mr Boulet's submission. I see no great value in me taking an extended period of time to review all the evidence in detail. Really what happened at this trial was that I heard from the complainant and from the accused before the Court. The accused testified in a forthright manner, and while his evidence differed on the key elements from the complainant, that does not mean that his evidence was not true or to be believed. And at a very minimum, I am left in a reasonable doubt by his evidence. He was forthright. He was honest. He was not touched in cross-examination. There is no basis on which to reject his evidence, and I am left in a reasonable doubt by his evidence and I therefore find him not guilty.