Warning: This story contains sensitive and graphic content that may be disturbing to some readers.
A Toronto couple convicted of murder for allegedly killing their child has been granted a retrial by Ontario’s top court. Comments made by the trial judge, urging them to plead guilty, were found on appeal to have caused a “miscarriage of justice.”
A three-judge decision released Wednesday found that the “appearance of fairness and the integrity of the trial was irretrievably compromised” after comments made by the trial judge in 2017, telling them at one point that they were “f****d.”
The appeal on behalf of Ravyn Colley and Joel Roberto was granted, despite a jury finding them guilty of first and second-degree murder respectively in the death of their four-year-old son, Jaelin. He died in 2014 after suffering from chronic malnutrition and blunt-force trauma.
During Roberto’s trial, the court heard he had called 911 at 2 a.m. one night in 2014, claiming his son had fallen down the stairs of the family’s townhouse near Finch Avenue and Don Mills Road in North York. That story, the judge said, was a lie concocted by the couple.
An autopsy found that Jaelin, who was just 27 pounds at the time of his death and just months from turning five years old, died from blunt force trauma to the head, aspiration of vomit to the lungs and chronic severe protein malnutrition.
The couple was arrested and charged with failing to provide the necessities of life, but the charges were later upgraded to first-degree murder. A jury found both guilty of murder, though Roberto was found guilty of second-degree.
An appeal was filed on a “number of grounds,” according to the appeal court ruling. Among the reasons the couple requested a fresh trial were disagreements over what evidence could be admitted at trial, how the judge instructed the jury and claims the judge attempted to make both plead guilty.
In particular, the appeal court decision said that during the first in-chambers meeting, the trial judge “expressed his opinion” that the pair were “very likely” to be convicted of murder. According to the ruling, the judge suggested to the defence lawyers that their clients plead guilty in no uncertain terms.
“He did so in strong language, advising defence counsel that their clients were “f****d” if they went to trial,” the ruling said. “He encouraged all counsel to resolve the case by having both appellants plead guilty to second degree murder.”
The decision also said that later in the trial a video of the couple’s son with serious injuries was played.
“The trial judge requested counsel’s presence in his chambers again,” the appeal court decision said. “He said that the video was ‘a f******g disaster’ and further encouraged guilty pleas.”
During the original trial, the judge said Roberto had to be aware that his son was being starved and did nothing about it. He also found that Roberto assaulted Jaelin on either Oct. 8 or 9, 2014, and did bodily harm to the child.
The judge called the boy’s father “a dishonest witness who continued to minimize his responsibility and shift blame onto Ms. Colley.”
He also noted that the animus for the months of neglect was “Jaelin’s toileting issue.”
Wednesday’s decision to grant the couple’s appeal declined to comment on issues of what evidence can be admitted, which was part of the grounds for appeal.
The court of appeal decided that rulings made during the trial were “tainted by the trial judge’s in-court comments.”
— with files from Global News’ Catherine McDonald
Comments