Advertisement

Kingston incest conviction thrown out, new trial granted due to judge’s errors

The Ontario Court of Appeal has overturned a ruling of a father convicted of incest in Kingston, Ont. File / Global News

TORONTO — A prosecutor should not have asked a father accused of incest about why his daughter might have made up her allegations against him, Ontario’s top court ruled on Thursday.

As a result of the questioning, and the judge’s refusal to stop it, the accused should get a new trial, the Court of Appeal decided.

“The cross-examination of the appellant about the complainant’s motive to lie was improper and prejudicial,” Justice Mary Lou Benotto wrote for the Appeal Court.

The father, identified only as G.H., was convicted in Superior Court in January 2017. One of his daughters had alleged in March 2015 that, over several years, he had touched her sexually and had intercourse with her.

Story continues below advertisement

At trial in Kingston, Ont., the defence argued the 11-year-old girl had made up her allegations in an effort to have her mother, who was travelling for work, return home.

The father, in answer to prosecution questions, denied any wrongdoing and said his daughter was lying. The prosecutor pressed G.H. over defence objections to come up with a reason his daughter would lie.

Breaking news from Canada and around the world sent to your email, as it happens.

Justice Wolfram Tausendfreund, presiding over the trial, allowed the questioning, saying he thought it relevant to explore what G.H. thought had motivated his daughter to make her allegations. The father said it appeared the girl missed her mother and had made up the story to get her to come home.

Click to play video: 'Napanee woman sentenced in infanticide case'
Napanee woman sentenced in infanticide case

The Crown in closing heaped scorn on the father’s testimony about his daughter’s motivation for lying.

On appeal, G.H. argued the judge was wrong to allow the line of questioning.

Story continues below advertisement

In quashing the guilty verdict, the Appeal Court agreed it was improper to ask an accused to comment on the credibility of his accusers. One reason, the court said, is that a jury might unfairly view the accused negatively for being unable to provide a compelling reason for why a complainant made the allegations.

“The questions did not concern the relationship between the family members, but rather asked the appellant to offer an explanation for the complainant’s allegations,” Benotto wrote.

“The questioning was misleading because the jury could have been left with the impression that he should have had a credible explanation for the allegations.”

Also, a key issue at trial was where the daughter had slept the night before she made her complaints. One witness had told police the complainant started out sleeping with her, but got up in the night to go sleep in her father’s room.

At trial, the witness said she was confused when she talked to police and distanced herself from her statement.

G.H. argued on appeal that the judge had failed to properly instruct the jury about the inconsistent statements.

In response, the Appeal Court said the judge should have been clear that the jury could not assume the police statement was true. His failure to be explicit, the court said, amounted to a legal error.

Story continues below advertisement

The Appeal Court rejected the Crown’s position that no miscarriage of justice had occurred even if the errors were made, and ordered a new trial.

Sponsored content

AdChoices