A Nova Scotia man found guilty of sexually abusing his daughter for over a decade has won a new trial because of legal errors by the trial judge.
In a ruling released Wednesday, the Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia set aside nine sexual assault convictions, for reasons including that the trial judge did not fairly assess the father’s credibility.
The man’s daughter had testified by closed circuit television that her father began sexually abusing her when she was four until she was 15.
READ: Nova Scotia court rules that sister can’t appeal dead taxi driver’s sexual assault conviction
The court heard from her younger sister, who testified she had seen the girl sitting on her father’s lap with his hands inside her pants.
The trial judge, Judge Paul Scovil of provincial court, found the Crown had proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, saying he found the girl’s evidence “compelling” and truthful overall, despite some inconsistencies.
He said the man’s credibility was a “key issue,” referencing moments when he tried to leave the courtroom and began crying while his daughters were testifying. The man also called his younger daughter’s testimony “frigging bull—-.”
The judge wrote that he did not accept the man’s evidence because of his demeanour in court and his characterization of his daughter.
“His outburst in court and his demeanour while observing Crown witnesses made a marked impact on his credibility,” Scovil wrote.
The father was found guilty and sentenced to four years.
In her decision on the appeal, Justice Cindy Bourgeois found that Scovil did not fully weigh all possible implications of the evidence, including testimony from the girl’s mother that may have cast doubt on the girl’s own credibility.
Scovil cited this evidence as strengthening the Crown’s case, but Bourgeois said it could have been interpreted as presenting reasonable doubt around the father’s guilt.
Bourgeois also said the evidence from the younger daughter, who testified she saw her sister on her father’s lap, did not necessarily prove any abuse took place.
“It is unclear whether the trial judge considered all relevant evidence, including that which, if accepted, may have influenced his credibility assessment and potentially raised a reasonable doubt,” Bourgeois wrote in her ruling.
WATCH: Report on university campus sexual violence calls for culture change
Bourgeois also found the judge relied too heavily on the man’s demeanour while he was outside the witness box when making a credibility assessment.
“Although based on the evidence it was open to the trial judge to find the appellant lacked credibility, his reasons for doing so are problematic,” Bourgeois wrote.
“In my view, it was inappropriate for the trial judge to place such significant reliance on the appellant’s out of box demeanour, especially in the absence of reasons explaining why it served to make a ‘marked impact’ on his credibility.”
The man had also appealed on the grounds that the judge allowed the girl to testify by closed-circuit television without proper legal application from the Crown.
Bourgeois dismissed this, finding the decision within the judge’s discretionary powers based on the age of the witness and what was already known about sensitive family relationships in the case.
Bourgeois set aside the convictions and ordered a new trial in the case.