International Law

R. v. Strong

You know how I said a couple of weeks ago that you can expect to hear a lot more from the Supreme Court’s line in Dinardo that ?the inquiry into the sufficiency of the reasons should be directed at whether the reasons respond to the case?s live issues.? Well, it didn’t take long. In this case (pdf file) before the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal the trial judge had found the appellant guilty of sexual assault with a weapon. Omitted from the reasons was any consideration of evidence led by one E. M. that the sex in question had been consensual.

In summary, and with respect, the judge’s reasons supporting the conviction are deficient. As the Supreme Court of Canada said in Dinardo, supra, we must consider whether the judge?s reasons respond to the ?case?s live issues? . . . The complainant?s credibility is very much a live issue in our appeal. It was significantly challenged by E.M.?s evidence. Thus, in the circumstances of this case, the appellant is denied a meaningful appeal under s. 686(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

Live issues. From now on it’s all going to be about the live issues.

Full post as published by Criminal Review on May 27, 2008 (boomark / email).