P.E.I. man’s appeal of sexual assault conviction, sentence dismissed
CHARLOTTETOWN, P.E.I. — A Miscouche man’s sexual assault conviction and sentence enchantment has been dismissed in P.E.I. Supreme Court docket.
William Robert Companion, 63, was sentenced on June 29, 2021, in provincial courtroom in Summerside by Choose Krista MacKay to 45 days in jail and two years of probation for the abstract sexual assault offence. Companion was additionally positioned on the nationwide intercourse offender registry for 10 years. A publication ban is in place stopping the discharge of knowledge that would determine the male sufferer.
Touching for sexual function
MacKay discovered Companion responsible of the cost after a trial in March. The allegations had been that Companion touched a 19-year-old man exterior of his clothes for a sexual function whereas they had been sitting within the again seat of a automobile that was leaving a home get together. Each Companion and the complainant had been ingesting alcohol on the get together. The driving force and passenger within the entrance seats did not witness the incident.
On July 2, 2021, Companion filed a discover of enchantment with the P.E.I. Supreme Court docket.
Greater than a yr after the enchantment was filed, a listening to was held on July 27. Justice Gregory Cann then issued a written choice on Aug. 11 dismissing the enchantment and upholding the sexual assault conviction and sentence.
Grounds for enchantment
In his choice, Cann summarized the grounds for the enchantment – that the trial decide misapprehended proof alleging that the complainant had a motive to manufacture proof and that she handled intoxication improperly, together with that the quantity of alcohol the complainant drank must have raised an inexpensive doubt concerning the credibility and reliability of his testimony and recollection of occasions. Different grounds for the enchantment concerned the trial decide’s evaluation of Companion’s credibility in comparison with the complainant’s credibility and permitting improper questioning associated to Companion’s identification because the offender within the automobile. The sentencing enchantment concerned MacKay’s choice to impose custody somewhat than a conditional sentence or home arrest.
Cann discovered no errors in precept of MacKay’s remedy of those claims. For example, Cann stated there was no proof earlier than the trial decide concerning the quantity and length of alcohol consumed by the complainant and his potential to understand and recall what occurred. Even so, in her choice, MacKay discovered that the complainant’s testimony was constant and “not substantively challenged by the defence regardless of detailed cross-examination.” Alternatively, MacKay stated a “nice inconsistency” with Companion’s testimony was the shift from having no reminiscence of the drive residence in a press release to police (apart from looking the window and going over a “to-do” checklist in his head) to having a “very particular reminiscence” at trial of what occurred contained in the automobile.
Motive to manufacture
The defence additionally utilized to introduce contemporary proof to assist the declare that the complainant had a motive to manufacture the sexual assault allegation. That allegation concerned the complainant telling police in a press release that he was “extraordinarily upset” with Companion for referring to him utilizing a misgendered pronoun, specifically, “she”.
Cann denied the defence’s request to have it entered as contemporary proof. Cann defined that the defence had a replica of the complainant’s assertion to police previous to the beginning of the trial. And on the trial, the complainant was cross-examined on components of that assertion, together with the remark that he was “extraordinarily upset” with Companion over being referred to as “she”.
At trial, the complainant responded that he was solely “a bit uncomfortable” and never “tremendous upset about it.” Cann famous that the assertion to police wasn’t entered into proof at trial.
“On this case, the assertion was identified to the defence and counsel was clearly alive to its potential significance. No clarification for the failure to place the assertion into proof has been provided. Absent an ineffective help of counsel argument, permitting contemporary proof within the circumstances of a case comparable to this may flip the product of a tactical choice by the defence into the premise for a “do-over” when the cross-examination on technique employed is unsuccessful,” Cann stated.
Companion was represented on the enchantment by defence lawyer Conor Mullin whereas John Diamond represented the Crown lawyer’s workplace.
Terrence McEachern is a justice reporter with the SaltWire Community in Prince Edward Island. He might be reached by e mail at [email protected] and might be adopted on Twitter @terry_mcn.
