R. v. Wilson Date:, 2011 BCPC 363

Citation: R. v. Wilson Date: 20111107 2011 BCPC 0363 File No: 220166-3-KC Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. TIMOTHY JAMES WILSON EXCERPTS FROM PROCEEDINGS REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE F. HOWARD Counsel for the Crown: B. Wolfe Counsel for the Defendant: H. Stevenson Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: November 7, 2011 Date of Judgment: November 7, 2011 [ 1 ] THE COURT: The accused is charged with a number of offences on Information 220166-3-KC.

The Crown has proceeded to trial on only three of the counts, those being: Count 1, assault of Lisa Stitchman on April 18th, 2011; Count 2, breach of undertaking by having contact with Lisa Stitchman on May 19th, 2011; and Count 5, breach of recognizance by being in possession of an air pistol on June 4th, 2011. COUNT 1: THE ASSAULT [ 2 ] The accused and Ms. Stitchman, whom I will refer to as Ms. S., were involved in an altercation in a small parking lot adjoining the back of a residence at 7120 Ridge Drive in Burnaby, B.C., on April 18th, 2011. Part of the incident was captured on video by a nearby resident, Ms.

Hernandez-Ramirez. This witness heard a commotion in the alley that seemed to be more than a mere argument. She looked out her window and what she saw caused her to turn on her digital camera. While observing the incident through her camera, she saw a woman sitting in a car. She was being hit "repeatedly on the head" by a man who was also pulling on her legs. [ 3 ] The video tape has been filed as an exhibit and it is upon this video that the Crown relies to prove its case against the accused.

[ 4 ] Crown counsel did call Ms. S. to testify as to what was occurring during the altercation that was captured on the video. The gist of her evidence was that it was she who was assaulting the accused. After eliciting testimony from Ms. S. as to her recollection of events from her own memory, Crown counsel then showed the video tape to her. She did not resile from her earlier testimony that she was the aggressor and the accused was only reacting to her assaultive conduct towards him. Instead, she explained the events depicted in the video in a manner that was consistent with her earlier testimony.

Still, it is the Crown counsel's position that this testimony from his own witness is a lie. [ 5 ] The accused also gave evidence which was consistent with that of Ms. S. Again, Crown counsel has argued that the testimony from the accused is also a fabrication. [ 6 ] If I reject the testimony from both the Crown witness and the accused, I am left only with the video which, absent any other reasonable explanation, reveals an assault by the accused. [ 7 ] The testimony from the two parties to this altercation is to this effect.

Firstly, in terms of their relationship, this was an on-again, off-again relationship which, according to Ms. S., "depended on my mood." As of the date of trial, from her perspective the accused meant "nothing" to her and was just an ex-boyfriend. [ 8 ] Back to the events of April 18th, 2011. Using separate vehicles, these two people had come to the basement suite of a residence at 7120 Ridge Drive to visit their friend Terry. They parked their vehicles in a small lot at the rear. Inside the suite, an argument quickly erupted because the accused had arrived late. Ms. S. was very upset over that.

She was otherwise in a very emotional state. That very day she had just discovered that she was pregnant. She had never been pregnant before. She announced this fact during the visit and asserted that the accused was the father. The accused did not believe her. Ms. S. became quite angry and distraught over the fact that the accused thought she was lying about "it being his kid." He, in turn, was screaming at her to "tell the truth," a phrase that can be heard on occasional points during the subsequent events captured by the video. [ 9 ] Ms.

S. and the accused left the basement suite and sat in her car, arguing all the while. The accused sat in the passenger seat; Ms. S. was in the driver's seat. As the argument got more heated, Ms. S. leaned back against the driver's door, lifted her leg and kicked the accused in the face and the chest. He had been holding his cell phone and wallet in one hand; the blows caused him to drop these items. The wallet fell to the floor in the driver's side wheel well and the cell phone fell into the driver's seat.

According to the accused, he was left with a small scuff mark on his chin that did not bleed and a bruise on his chest. [ 10 ] Under cross-examination, Ms. S. agreed that she had kicked the accused in the face. She stated, "I gave him a good heel to the face and the chest." I pause to note that Ms. S. is a small woman, five foot six inches tall and 115 to 120 pounds. I do not doubt that she could squeeze her leg up and plant her foot into the accused's face even though the vehicle was a small one. [ 11 ] The accused jumped out of the vehicle and went around to the driver's door. The door was opened.

He was admittedly quite irate at this point, having just been kicked in the face by Ms. S. He leaned inside the vehicle to retrieve his cell phone and wallet. This is where the video begins to capture the events. One can see the accused leaning over Ms. S. in a fashion that is consistent with the parties' joint assertion that he was trying to retrieve his belongings from the car. According to Ms. S., she did all she could to prevent the accused from getting to his wallet and licence. It was apparent from her testimony that she knew full well what the accused was after. [ 12 ] While watching the video, Ms.

S. explained the opening scene in the video. The accused was reaching in to get his wallet and licence which were "sitting on the floor right under me." She added, "He did not want to drive off without his licence and that was why he was so persistent about getting it back." Ms. S. responded to the accused's efforts to retrieve his belongings by turning in her seat and hitting and kicking at him.

Some of her comments in this regard: "I just kept kicking him." "I did not take a second even to listen to him." "I was kicking him, pushing him away from me." "I turned to the side and kicked at him so he cannot get by me to get his belongings." [ 13 ] On the video one can then see a quick bit of pushing and pulling which resulted in Ms. S being pulled partially out of the driver's seat by the accused. Ms. S. explained, "He is just trying to get me out of the way of his stuff once I gave him a second not to be kicked." She indicated, "He tries to get me out of the way to get his belongings.

He lets go and I dive back into the car." At this point, one can see her on the video landing back in the driver's seat of the vehicle. She explained why she went back into the car. "I feel my legs are my strongest point." From this I infer that she was keen to be back in a sitting position so that she could resume kicking at the accused. Immediately thereafter, the accused can then be seen on the video holding onto Ms. S.'s leg in an outstretched position. He lets go almost immediately. Ms.

S. explained that at this point, she was kicking at the accused, (this can be seen on the video) and he "is trying to get my feet out of the way." [ 14 ] Looking at the video in slow motion, it appears that the accused may be trying to pull Ms. S. from the seat. The slow motion view is deceptive. In real time, the accused holds Ms. S.'s legs for only a moment, literally just for one second, two at the very most before he lets go. This brief action is not consistent with a concerted effort to yank Ms. S. from the car. This event is followed by a further kicking motion or two from Ms.

S. towards the accused at which point the physical altercation ends. The video shows Ms. S. sitting in the driver's seat, leaning over towards the floor. An object is tossed from the car. The accused steps back, bends over, picks up the object (his wallet) from the ground and closes the driver's door of Ms. S.'s vehicle. [ 15 ] Thereafter the yelling continues on the video, especially from the accused; he was clearly irate. He acknowledged this in his testimony. His language was foul and his demeanour was intimidating. At one point the video depicts Ms. S. manoeuvring her vehicle out of its parking spot.

The accused steps in front of her vehicle, jabs his finger in her direction, bangs on the hood of the car and yells at her. He walks around to her driver's door and yells at her some more. She steps out of her vehicle so that she is, in fact, standing just a foot or two in front of him, "in his face" so to speak. She yells, "What do you want?" He replies, "The truth. I want the fucking truth." He then walks away from her. [ 16 ] It would appear from this latter segment of the video that, notwithstanding the accused's obviously angry state, Ms. S. had no apparent concern that he might turn violent towards her.

In my view, this is at least consistent with her assertion that, during the physical altercation that did occur, the accused had not been assaulting her. Had she just been the victim of an assault at the hands of this man, I

think it unlikely that she would step out of her car right in front of him and put herself in the position where he could easily have assaulted her again. In fact, the accused just walked away from her at this point, still angry, but making no physical gestures towards her of an assaultive nature. He returned to his vehicle and she to hers. [ 17 ] Ms. S. drove off, but did not go far. She travelled some hundred feet down the alley and then pulled into another parking lot where she stopped to calm down. Within minutes a police officer, Constable Vandevalk, arrived and began to question her about the incident.

She thought that she was going to be arrested for assaulting the accused. [ 18 ] During her testimony, Ms. S. remained firm in her assertion that the accused had never hit her or struck her during the above altercation. She had no marks or bruises anywhere on her body as a result of this event. This latter fact was confirmed to a certain extent by Constable Vandevalk who noted that Ms. S. was clearly upset and appeared to have been crying. However, he observed no marks, bruises or redness on her that might have been some indication that she had been assaulted.

Analysis re Assault [ 19 ] The evidence led by the Crown in support of the allegation of assault consists of the video tape and the testimony of Ms. S. I am satisfied this evidence can only lead to an acquittal. [ 20 ] I agree that, absent an exculpatory explanation from either the alleged victim or the accused, the video before me, standing alone, might support a conclusion or an inference that the accused had committed an assault (of a relatively minor nature) upon Ms. S. I can understand why Ms.

Hernandez-Ramirez thought that she was witnessing an assault, although I pause to note that at no time during the video can one see the accused striking out at Ms. S. or punching her in the head even once, let alone repeatedly. No weight can be attached to this evidence from this witness. [ 21 ] It is important to note that the video of this incident is not utterly unequivocal. It does not depict an assailant rushing 15 feet towards an unsuspecting victim and punching that victim on the back of the head. It is not that type of video.

Instead it shows a couple engaged in a "close quarters" wrestling match of sorts where there might be alternative explanations of what is going on. [ 22 ] In the present case, I do in fact have an explanation of what was happening during the altercation. That explanation has come from Ms. S., the alleged victim.

She has told me that she was the one assaulting the accused, who was merely warding off the kicks that she was inflicting upon him in order to prevent him from collecting his wallet and driver's licence from the floor of the vehicle. [ 23 ] The question of whether her testimony is consistent with what is depicted in the video can only be properly assessed by viewing the video in real time. The physical contact between the two parties is actually very brief. It consists of a flurry of body motions, a wrestling match of sorts, that lasts just 19 seconds according to the time clock embedded in the video.

Watching this very brief clip in slow motion distorts the events by making it appear that a one or two second physical motion by either Ms. S. or the accused is more deliberate or prolonged than it actually is. [ 24 ] After reviewing the video in conjunction with the testimony of Ms. S., I am of the view that the video is consistent with her account of what occurred during this incident. Constable Vandevalk's testimony that Ms.

S. had no visible marks or bruises is also consistent with her testimony that she was the aggressor and that she was never struck or assaulted by the accused. [ 25 ] In order to convict the accused of the alleged assault, I would have to reject Ms. S.'s account of what was happening during the time captured by the video. Indeed, the Crown's position is that the testimony of his witness, Ms. S., is a lie, as is the testimony of the accused, and the only evidence that I can rely on is the video. After reviewing the video tape and the testimony of Ms.

S., I can find no principled basis upon which to doubt her version of events let alone conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that her testimony is a fabrication. [ 26 ] Again, I am satisfied that the video is consistent with her testimony. The mere fact that the events depicted in the video are consistent with an allegation of assault in the absence of an alternate, reasonable explanation from the alleged victim as to what was actually occurring is not by itself a logical basis upon which to reject that witness's explanation.

There is no other evidentiary foundation before me which could support an argument, let alone a conclusion, that the testimony of Ms. S. is a lie. I add only that the pushing and shoving incident depicted on the video does not give rise to any concerns in this case about excessive force; excessive noise, yes, but excessive force, no. [ 27 ] As noted above, the accused's version of events was consistent with that of Ms. S. His testimony was remarkable only because of his demeanour in the witness stand.

He was verbally aggressive and argumentative with Crown counsel, a little arrogant and quick to anger when suggestions were put to him that were, from his perspective, false. In short, he appeared to be the very same angry and belligerent man whom one can see in the video. [ 28 ] I think the accused is who he is. He appeared before the court in an unfiltered state, so to speak. In certain circumstances, an irate and intimating demeanour on the part of an accused may lend some support to a complainant's allegation that she was assaulted by him. That is not the case before me.

In this case, where the alleged victim has denied being assaulted by the accused, the accused's demeanour, both at the scene of the incident and while testifying, is not so concerning as to cause me to doubt the reliability of his testimony or that of Ms. S. [ 29 ] I reject the Crown counsel's argument that his witnesses, Ms. S. and the accused, have lied to the court about the altercation in question. I have come to this conclusion without having to consider a prior consistent statement by Ms. S. to the investigator officer, Constable Vandevalk. [ 30 ] For the sake of completeness, I will set out this testimony.

Within minutes of the alleged altercation, while still parked in her car just a hundred metres down the alley, Ms. S. was approached by Constable Vandevalk who began questioning her about the incident in question. This was very quickly after the altercation had come to an end. Ms. S. had had no time to talk to the accused about the incident and very little time in which to concoct a story to absolve the accused of any wrong doing. During her discussion with the

constable, she gave a verbal statement to him in which she explained what had happened. In particular, she told the constable shebelieved that she was pregnant with the accused's child. She told him that she had kicked at the accused when he tried to grab hisbelongings from the driver's side of the vehicle and she told him that the accused had not assaulted her. [31] During the course of the trial, it was apparent that Crown counsel would be taking the position that his witness, Ms. S., was lyingduring her testimony in direct examination. He had no case against the accused unless he took this position.

I allowed the defence tolead the above prior consistent statement from this witness in order to rebut an allegation of recent fabrication. [32] A "recent fabrication" encompasses an allegedly false story presented by a witness "at some point after the event that is thesubject of his or her testimony that actually occurred." R. v. Stirling,

(2008) S.C.C. 10, para. 5. In my view, the prior statement by Ms.S. was made minutes after the incident in question at a time when she was still angry at the accused, still in distress following herargument with him, and before any motive to fabricate a story for the police constable arose. [33] In Stirling, the Supreme Court of Canada set out the use that can be made of a prior consistent statement admitted to rebut anallegation of recent fabrication at paras. 11 and 12: 11.

Courts and scholars in this country have used a variety of language to describe the way prior consistent statements may impact ona witness's credibility where they refute suggestion of an improper motive. Both the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal and the Alberta Courtof Appeal refer to the "bolstering" of the witness's credibility (R. v. Schofield (1996), 1996 NSCA 55 , 148 N.S.R. (2d) 175, atpara. 23; R. v. R. (J.) (2000), 84 Alta. L.R. (3d) 92, 2000 ABCA 196, at para. 8), a term which is also used in the leading text of SopinkaLederman and Bryant, at p. 314.

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently found that these statements are capable of "strengthening"credibility (R. v. Zebedee (2006), (ON CA), 211 C.C.C. (3d) 199, at para. 117), while the British Columbia Court ofAppeal has referred to their ability to "rehabilitate" credibility (R. v. Aksidan (2006), 209 C.C.C. (3d) 423, 2006 BCCA 258, at para. 21).This Court has found that the statements can be admitted "in support of" the witness's credibility (Evans, at p. 643).

What is clear fromall of these sources is that credibility is necessarily impacted - in a positive way - where admission of prior consistent statements removesa motive for fabrication. Although it would clearly be flawed reasoning to conclude that removal of this motive leads to a conclusion thatthe witness is telling the truth, it is permissible for this factor to be taken into account as part of the larger assessment of credibility. 12.

It is therefore not entirely accurate to submit, as the appellant contends, that prior consistent statements cannot be used to "bolster"or "support" the credibility of a witness generally. This argument attempts to insulate the impact of the prior consistent statements fromthe remainder of the credibility analysis and suggests that "general" credibility can somehow be hived off from the specific credibilityquestion to which the statements relate. Such a fine parsing of the notion of credibility is impractical and artificial.

Further, while itwould clearly be an error to conclude that because someone has been saying the same thing repeatedly their evidence is more likely to becorrect, there is no error in finding that because there is no evidence that an individual has a motive to lie, their evidence is more likely tobe honest. [34] Again, although not necessary to my conclusion that there is nothing in the evidence before me to support a finding that thewitness, Ms.

S., fabricated her trial testimony, I am of the view that her prior statement to Constable Vandevalk was consistent with hertrial testimony; hence, it does tend to support the credibility of this witness. This statement was given at a time when she had no obviousmotive to lie. COUNT 2: BREACH OF UNDERTAKING BY HAVING CONTACT WITH MS. S. [35] The accused was released on an undertaking that prohibited him from having any contact, direct or indirect, with Ms. S. Theevidence to support this charge came from Ms. S.

On May 17th, 2011, close to midnight, she was in an upstairs apartment in a buildinglocated at 4025 Albert Street in Burnaby, B.C. She was basically couch surfing at this upstairs apartment belonging to her friend, Jill,and sometimes at the ground floor apartment of a Mr. Rapp with whom both she and the accused were acquainted. She looked out thewindow and thought she saw the accused's car go by. She was surprised to see him. She ran downstairs to the apartment of Mr. Rapphoping to see him. [36] Once in the apartment, she went outside onto the ground floor patio. She saw the accused walking across the lawn.

She had notmade any plans with him to meet at the Rapp residence. In fact, during the preceding months, she had sent him many text messages andleft many telephone messages for him, all to no avail. He never responded. When the accused was still on the lawn some 15 to 20 feetaway from her, she tried to talk to him. She testified, "I wanted to know why he was not communicating with me. Why he did notanswer my telephone calls. Why I was now homeless." The accused told her he had no choice. He could not contact her. There was ano-contact order. She was yelling at him.

She testified, "I started getting belligerent again. I got knocked up and he left me high anddry." He told her, "Any contact means I go to jail." She accused him of lying about the court order. [37] During cross-examination, Ms. S. confirmed that "right away" the accused told her he could not be around her. She stated, "Hewould not even listen to me." Were their voices elevated? "Yes." She added, "I get very loud." Ms. S. explained that no one had toldher that there was a no-contact order. She continued shouting at the accused because she did not believe him when he tried to explainthat there was such an order.

She continued to push the issue, stating, "Yeah, I kept badgering him." The conversation lasted only a fewminutes and then the accused left. He never entered the building. [38] Constable Sharein attended at the Albert Street residence in response to a disturbance call. He met Ms. S. inside the front lobbyof the building. She was upset and crying. The constable testified that during his conversation with Ms. S., "She absolutely stated thatshe thought Mr. Wilson was lying about the no-contact order." She explained to the constable that this was why she had started yellingat the accused.

This prior consistent statement was once again admitted to rebut the Crown's position that Ms. S. was lying about thecontact that had occurred between her and the accused on May 17th, 2011. [39] The accused testified as well. He confirmed that he had received many text messages and telephone calls from Ms. S. in thepreceding weeks to which he did not respond. On May 17th, he was on his way to visit with his friend, Mr. Rapp. As he walked acrossthe lawn in front of the apartment building, he was confronted by Ms. S. He had not expected to see her.

She flipped out at him, callinghim a jerk for abandoning her and not answering her telephone calls. When he tried to explain about the no-contact order, she told him,

"I was full of shit. I was lying." He tried to explain the order to her to no avail. He left. He never went into the apartment building. Analysis re Breach of the No-Contact Order [ 40 ] The defence position is that the above encounter between the accused and Ms. S. was unplanned and inadvertent. The accused had no idea that Ms. S. would be at Mr. Rapp's apartment. Ms. S. initiated the verbal contact as the accused was crossing the lawn.

She was immediately angry and yelling at him for not having answered her phone calls and text messages and for having left her "knocked up" and "homeless." The accused's immediate response was to let her know that there was a no-contact order; it was not his fault; any contact meant he would go to jail. Ms. S. became even more belligerent, accusing him of lying about the no-contact order. He finally left without ever going into the building. [ 41 ] The Crown's position is that Ms. S. and the accused are both lying about the nature of the contact that occurred on May 17th.

In my view, the testimony given by these two witnesses, in particular by Ms. S., was straightforward and persuasive. There is no evidentiary foundation to support an inference that they have lied about this event. There is no evidence of any prior or subsequent communication between the two. There is no evidence that the accused was ever inside the apartment building with Ms. S. There is no evidence that the confrontation was about anything other than what the witnesses have said it was. [ 42 ] I accept that Ms. S. was unaware of the existence of the no-contact order. I accept that the comments to Ms.

S. by the accused were uttered only for the purpose of telling her that he could not talk to her because of the no-contact order. This was the accused's immediate reaction to her attempts to talk to him. The conversation did not end abruptly only because of Ms. S.'s disbelief that there was any such order and her accusations that the accused was lying about this fact. Here, I am mindful of Ms.

S.'s comments that the accused "would not listen to her." This is consistent with the proposition that the accused's only purpose was to tell her that he could not have contact with her. [ 43 ] In the unusual circumstances described above, I am of the view that the accused's attempts to stop Ms. S. from trying to engage him in a conversation by verbally instructing her that he was bound by a no-contact order and that "contact means I go to jail" is a lawful excuse. At the very least, the facts before me reveal no criminal animus on the part of the accused.

Rather they reveal a broader intent to avoid breaching the no-contact order provision in his undertaking. I would have taken a different view if the parties had sat down on a couch together for a half hour or so to discuss the order, but this is not the evidence. The verbal interaction was brief, lasting only a few minutes. It was perhaps more protracted than necessary to relay the message, "I cannot talk to you. There is a no-contact order." This in my view was a product of Ms.

S.'s persistence in badgering the accused with her assertions that he was lying about the court order, thereby causing the conversation to last three, four or five minutes. COUNT 5: BREACH OF RECOGNIZANCE - POSSESSION OF AIR PISTOL [ 44 ] The accused was prohibited from being in possession of an air pistol by virtue of a recognizance governing his behaviour in the community while on bail. On June 4th, 2011, Constable Baker approached the accused while the latter was sitting in the driver's seat of his vehicle in a parked position on Hazel Street in Burnaby, B.C.

After confirming that the accused was the registered owner of the vehicle, the constable managed to elicit the accused's consent to search the vehicle even though there were no reasonable grounds to believe that an offence had been committed by the accused. The constable asked the accused's permission to conduct a search. He told him that any evidence he found could be used as evidence in a court proceeding. He told the accused that he could withdraw his consent at any time. The accused was cooperative with the constable throughout the dealings. On the issue of the search, the accused gave his consent.

He said, "Go ahead." The defence does not take issue with the lawfulness of this consensual search. [ 45 ] The constable first searched the interior of the car; he then turned his attention to the trunk. He opened the hatch, nothing was visible. He lifted the floor mat and saw nothing. He lifted the floorboard and saw nothing but the spare tire. He lifted the spare tire. He could see that there was an object of some kind in the well under the spare tire, but he could not make out what it was. He reached in and extracted it. It was an air pistol wrapped in a bandana. It was unloaded.

No pellets for the gun were found in the vehicle. The accused stood by the rear of his vehicle as the search occurred. He said nothing to the officer. [ 46 ] The accused testified. He was aware that he could stop the search at any time. He added, "I know my rights." He consented to the search and did nothing to stop it, because he had no idea that the air pistol was under the spare tire in the trunk. He was "right there" when the constable found the air pistol. He stated, "My jaw just about hit the floor.

I was absolutely astounded that it was there." He had never seen the air pistol before. [ 47 ] The accused explained that his vehicle is an old beater, worth maybe $200, that he uses to drive around in bad weather. He has frequently loaned it out to friends. He named three persons who had most recently been in possession of the vehicle, one for an extended period of time. Analysis Re Breach of Recognizance - the Air Pistol [ 48 ] The issue on this count is whether the Crown has established the element of "knowledge" beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Crown points to the fact that the accused was the registered owner of the vehicle and he was actually driving it at the time that the air pistol was located. These are facts from which knowledge and care and control of the contents of a vehicle may be inferred. [ 49 ] In the present case, there are other circumstances that must be considered. The accused has given credible evidence denying that he knew that the air pistol was in the car. He frequently loaned out this old beater to various acquaintances.

If one of those persons had decided to hide the air pistol under the spare tire, there is no basis upon which to think that the accused would have or must have noticed its presence in the car. The air pistol was clearly not in plain view or within easy access of the accused, as the driver. In fact, it was well hidden in the trunk beneath the carpet, beneath the floorboard and beneath the spare tire. Even then, the gun was not plainly visible. All the officer could see under the tire was an undefined object. [ 50 ] The accused willingly gave his consent to a search of the vehicle.

Even when the officer got close to the spot where the gun was hidden, the accused did not withdraw his consent. There is no evidence that he became nervous or agitated in any way at this critical

moment. This is consistent with his assertion that he had nothing to worry about because he did not know the air pistol was there. [ 51 ] Finally, there are no fingerprints, DNA evidence or other forms of evidence that link this accused to the air pistol. [ 52 ] Given all of these circumstances, I am of the view that the Crown has failed to establish knowledge on the part of the accused. CONCLUSION [ 53 ] THE COURT: Mr. Wilson, I find you not guilty on Count 1. I find you not guilty on Count 2, and I find you not guilty on Count 5. [ 54 ] THE ACCUSED: Thank you, Your Honour. (REASONS CONCLUDED)