2022 QCCA 528, 2022 QCCA 528

Leung c. R. 2022 QCCA 528 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-10-006824-187 (500-01-133180-163 SEQ.001) DATE: April 14, 2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE FRANÇOIS DOYON, J.A. GUY COURNOYER, J.A. FRÉDÉRIC BACHAND, J.A. GOI HING LEUNG APPELANT – Accused v.

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN RESPONDENT – Prosecutor and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC IMPLEADED PARTY JUDGMENT [ 1 ] This is an appeal of the judgment rendered on July 5, 2018 by the Court of Québec, Criminal and Penal Division, district of Montreal (the Honourable Judge Thierry Nadon) by which he was found guilty of attempted murder. [ 2 ] The appellant argues that the verdict is unreasonable. [ 3 ] In a lengthy judgment, the trial judge meticulously scrutinized the overwhelming evidence (notably video and forensic) and drew reasonable inferences of fact that supported his verdict, [1] more specifically about the appellant’s motive, i.e. that the appellant knew his former lover had been sexually assaulted by the victim.

The appellant argues that there was no such evidence. [ 4 ] The judge emphasized that the appellant admitted to the police, two days after the assault that he had heard about the sexual assault. Moreover, the judge believed Ms. Jessie Annanack’s testimony to the effect that everyone in Montréal’s homeless Indigenous community – which included the appellant – knew about the rape.

In these circumstances, the trial judge could reasonably infer the existence of a motive [2] . [ 5 ] Moreover, the judge inferred that the presence of the victim’s blood on the appellant’s jacket, a few hours after the crime, could only be explained by his presence at the crime scene.

Considering all of the evidence – especially the video surveillance and the precise description of the victim’s injuries given by the appellant after the incidents, which description, in the circumstances, could only have been provided by the assailants – this inference is reasonable. [ 6 ] But above all, a metal bar with the victim’s saliva and blood on it was found in the appellant’s possession a few hours after the event.

This is a significant piece of evidence which strongly connected the appellant to the crime, given that the victim was hit a number of times in the face and on the head. [ 7 ] The trial judge rightly concluded, from the whole of the evidence, that the appellant’s explanation in his statement to the police - that the metal bar had been given to him by his co-accused – was a lie.

[ 8 ] Finally, the appellant does not point to any error of law or to any palpable and overriding error of fact and, in light of the evidence, he has not convinced the Court that it should interfere with the verdict. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : [ 9 ] GRANTS the motion to extend the time to appeal; [ 10 ] GRANTS the motion for leave to appeal; [ 11 ] DISMISSES the appeal. FRANÇOIS DOYON, J.A. GUY COURNOYER, J.A. FRÉDÉRIC BACHAND, J.A. Me Farah Nantel-Hamud Desjardins Côté For the Appelant Me Geneviève Langlois Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutors For the Respondent Date of hearing: April 1, 2022