R. v. N.S.V., 2022 BCPC 102

Citation: R. v. N.S.V. 2022 BCPC 102 Date: 20220317 File No: 239842-1 Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Criminal Court REGINA v. N.S.V. BAN ON PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO s. 486.4(2.1) CCC ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE D. JAHANI Counsel for the Crown: S. Domaradzki Counsel for the Accused: B. Sandhu Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Date of Hearing: July 19-22; Nov. 2, 8, 30, 2021; Jan. 27, 2022 Date of Judgment: March 17, 2022

[1] Mr. V. is charged on Information 239842 that from November 1st to 28th, 2019, inclusive, at or near the City of White Rock,did, for a sexual purpose, touch, directly or indirectly, the body of H.V., contrary to s. 151 of the Criminal Code. The complainant, H.V.,is Mr. V.'s daughter. [2] The Crown's case included evidence from the complainant, her mother, her maternal uncle and two officers who took thecomplaint's and her mother's statements. [3] Mr. V. also presented evidence and testified. He also called a witness, Ms. N., who provided evidence in support of Mr.

V.'scase. [4] The main issue to resolve in this case is the credibility and reliability of the witnesses. Background Facts [5] The disclosure of the allegations against the accused came about on the evening of H.V.’s sixth birthday, to her mother, Ms. H.,after H.V. had taken a bath. This was on February 21st, 2020. The allegations as disclosed by the child are that Mr. V. allegedly touchedher private parts while H.V. was at his house. The child's parents had separated as of September 1, 2017 and Mr.

V. moved out of thefamily home a few days later and has not returned, except on one occasion accompanied by a peace officer to retrieve his personalbelongings. [6] There is little evidence concerning the regime of parenting time prior to June 2019. Mr. V.'s visits with H.V. were supervisedfrom January 2018, onwards. In the summer of 2019 they remained supervised either by Ms. H. or by Mr. V.'s cousin. The post-separation parenting times were inconsistent and sometimes once per week, and the two visits in January and February that occurred in2020 were supervised by Ms. H.

Prior to the year 2020, five visits occurred in November 2019 and one visit in December 2019. Basedon the evidence, Ms. H. was present for the November movie visit and the three other visits that occurred in the community. The fifthvisit which occurred on November 28th, 2019 was the only visit where Ms. H. was not present, and evidence was presented that itoccurred at Ms. N.'s home. [7] Little evidence was presented as part of the Crown's case with respect to the parenting time regime from separation in September2017 to January 2018. H.V. was 10 months old when Mr.

V. came to Canada, and three-and-a-half years old when he moved out of thefamily home. [8] The child provided a videotaped statement to the police shortly following the disclosure of the allegations to her mother. Thevideotaped statement formed part of her examination in chief pursuant to s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code. [9] At the conclusion of the Crown's case, defence brought a no evidence motion seeking to have the charges dismissed.

The courtdismissed that motion as, in its limited role of not being able to weigh the evidence or assess credibility and reliability of the witnesses,some evidence existed upon which a jury, acting reasonably and properly instructed, could convict. The Law [10] As mentioned earlier, this is a case where the central issue is credibility and reliability. An accused is presumed innocent untilproven guilty. It is not an accused's obligation to prove his innocence. The Crown has the obligation to prove the guilt of an accused andprove all elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt is one that is based on reason and common sense. It mustlogically follow from the evidence, or absence of evidence, and from the failure of evidence to persuade the judge beyond a reasonabledoubt. [11] The test of reasonable doubt when credibility is at issue is set out in the Supreme Court of Canada decision of R. v.

W.(D.) whichstates as follows: First, if I believe the evidence of the accused, obviously I must acquit; second, if I do not believe the evidence of theaccused but I am left in reasonable doubt by it, I must acquit; third, even if I am not left in reasonable doubt by the evidence of theaccused, I must ask myself whether, on the basis of the evidence which I do accept, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by thatevidence of the guilt of the accused. [12] An accused's lack of credibility does not prove his or her guilt. I may accept some of an accused's testimony while disbelievingother parts.

I must consider all of the evidence in deciding whether there is any reasonable doubt and any reasonable doubt must beresolved in the favour of the accused. I may accept some, all or none of the witness' testimony. The evidence of each witness must beconsidered in light of all of the other evidence.

This is not a credibility contest such that I would have to determine who is telling thetruth or which version I should choose. [13] In assessing credibility I have to distinguish between credibility, which is a witness' veracity, and reliability, meaning theaccuracy of the witness' testimony and their ability to observe, recall and recount events in question, as an honest witness can provideinaccurate information. Children's Evidence [14] In R. v.

B.(G.), (SCC), 1990 2 SCR 30, Justice Wilson of the Supreme Court of Canada at paragraph 48,stated that: ...the judiciary should take a common sense approach when dealing with the testimony of young children and not impose the sameexacting standard on them … as it does on adults. However, this is not to say that the courts should not carefully assess the credibility ofchild witnesses or that the standard of proof must be lowered when dealing with children... ...a flaw, such as a contradiction, in a child's testimony should not be given the same effect as a similar flaw in the testimony of an adult.

…While children may not be able to recount precise details and communicate the when and where of an event with exactitude, this doesnot mean that they have misconceived what happened to them and who did it. …The credibility of every witness who testifies before the courts must, of course, be carefully assessed but the standard of the"reasonable adult" is not necessarily appropriate in assessing the credibility of young children. [15] In R. v.

W.(R.), (SCC), 1992 2 SCR 122, Justice McLachlin, at paragraphs 23, 24, 25 and 27, confirmed that thelaw affecting the evidence of children has undergone two major changes in recent years; the first is removal of the notion that theevidence of children was inherently unreliable and therefore to be treated with special caution.

Thus, for example, the requirement thatthe child's evidence be corroborated has been removed. [23]…The repeal of provisions creating a legal requirement that children's evidence be corroborated does not prevent the judge or juryfrom treating a child's evidence with caution where such caution is merited in the circumstances of the case. But it does revoke theassumption formerly applied to all evidence of children, often unjustly, that children's evidence is always less reliable than the evidenceof adults.

So if a court proceeds to discount a child's evidence automatically, without regard to the circumstances of the particular case,it will have fallen into an error. [24] The second change in the attitude of the law toward the evidence of children in recent years is a new appreciation that it may bewrong to apply adult tests for credibility to the evidence of children… …Since children may experience the world differently from adults, it is hardly surprising that details important to adults, like time andplace, may be missing from their recollection. [26]…Every person giving testimony in court, of whatever age, is an individual, whose credibility and evidence must be assessed byreference to criteria appropriate to her mental development, understanding and ability to communicate. [16] Children's evidence should be therefore viewed with a common sense approach.

Credibility of a child should still be assessed,although not expecting the same exacting standards applied to adult testimony. [17] In R. v. M.(R.E.), 2002 BCSC 162, at paragraph 39 Mr. Justice Romilly stated: In R. v. F. (C.C.), supra, the court pointed out that when a judge rules that the statement has been adopted, the threshold degree ofreliability has been met and the videotaped statement is admissible as evidence. That evidence, together with the viva voce evidence attrial, could comprise all of the evidence-in-chief of the complainant.

Matters dealing with the circumstances in which the video wasmade, the veracity of the witness' statements, and the overall reliability of the evidence are matters for the trier of fact to consider whenassessing the weight to be given to the videotaped statement.

Even if defence counsel, in cross-examination elicits evidence whichcontradicts any part of the video, this does not render those parts inadmissible; rather, inconsistencies go to weight. [18] It is clear that one has to assess whether or not the discrepancies or inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence affect thecredibility of the core story to which she has testified. With respect to the timeframe of the allegations set out in the Information, in R. v.B.(G.), (SCC), 1990 2 SCR 30 at paragraph 43 and 44 our Supreme Court of Canada stated: 1.

While time must be specified in an information in order to provide an accused with reasonable information about the charges broughtagainst him and ensure the possibility of a full defence and a fair trial, exact time need not be specified. The individual circumstances ofthe particular case may, however, be such that greater precision as to time is required, for instance, if there is a paucity of other factualinformation available with which to identify the transaction. 2.

If the time specified in the information is inconsistent with the evidence and time is not an essential element of the offence or crucialto the defence, the variance is not material and the information need not be quashed. 3. If there is conflicting evidence regarding the time of the offence, or the date of the offence cannot be established with precision, theinformation need not be quashed and a conviction may result, provided that time is not an essential element of the offence or crucial tothe defence. 4.

If the time of the offence cannot be determined and time is an essential element of the offence or crucial to the defence, a convictioncannot be sustained. [44] Accordingly, when a court is faced with circumstances in which the time of the offence cannot be determined with precision or theinformation conflicts with the evidence, the first question that must be asked is whether time is either an essential element of the offenceor crucial to the defence.

It will only be in cases where this first question is answered affirmatively that the trier of fact must thendetermine whether the time of the offence has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If the answer to the first question is in thenegative, a conviction may result even although the time of the offence is not proven, provided that the rest of the Crown's case is provenbeyond a reasonable doubt. Analysis [19] I am setting out my analysis in the following order for easier comprehension of these reasons. [20] At the time of her disclosure of the above allegations, the complainant was six years of age.

Her videotaped statement, which wastaken in March 2020, formed part of her examination in chief and she was also cross-examined during this trial. In her video statement,which was filed as an exhibit to these proceedings, she presented as age-appropriate. She was able to carry out small, short conversations,she was adequately able to understand the questions asked of her, was able to state who lived at her mother's home, how her birthdaywas, how many pets she had and why she was at the police station giving a statement.

[ 21 ] While her attention span was short and she often jumped to different topics sometimes not connected to the questions asked, she was generally able to answer the questions when the officer guided her back to specific topics. [ 22 ] The complainant was able to understand what "touching" meant; for example, the officer's hand on her knee. At times, questions had to be reworded for her to appreciate the point of the question; for example, when trying to canvass how she was allegedly touched.

In questions trying to extract whether the touching happened over or under clothing and whether she appreciated the difference between "over" and "under", she was able to correctly describe the difference between a pen being on top, underneath, inside and outside of the box. [ 23 ] When the officer engaged her in naming body parts she was able to identify the body parts, including the private body parts, and show them on the diagram.

Understanding the box game, she said that her father touched her vagina from the outside and she did not like him taking off her clothes. [ 24 ] The complainant was also able to differentiate between her home -meaning where she lives with her mom - and her dad's house. She described going to his home, playing with him and then her dad taking her home with her mom. [ 25 ] In the video statement the complainant stated that the allegations occurred when she was at her father's house, that he touched her private areas with his hand over her clothes.

She stated that she has been to her father's house and does not like it and that he lives on his own. It was her evidence that the alleged offence occurred in his toy room where there is a Barbie bike, toys and candies. [ 26 ] With respect to her in-court evidence in chief and cross-examination during trial, I made similar general observations in that she was able to carry age-appropriate small conversation, yet found her to be more vocal and articulate than she was during her video statement, and her answers better connected to the questions asked.

This is expected because she was a year older at the time of trial and better able to communicate her thoughts. While I do note that she has been diagnosed as having mild autism, I did not notice this affecting her testimony or comprehension for her age level. [ 27 ] The complainant was able to properly distinguish between her new and old home, recall who lived in her old house, the various rooms in her old house, having a new bedroom in her new house because her old bedroom was “sold”, how many bedrooms existed upstairs, her Uncle Judd and Aunt Jenn's living quarters.

She recalled how she had to accompany her Uncle Judd to his work because her mom had a doctor's appointment and she could not go along with her. She remembered meeting the officer who took her statement. Therefore, despite her young age she was able to make adequate references in relation to various points in time in her recent memory. The complainant could not at first recall a trampoline in her home. Based on Ms. H.’s evidence there used to be a small trampoline in their old house which was sold in 2018. [ 28 ] In her examination in chief, the complainant additionally alleged in court that Mr.

V. also asked her to touch his private parts. This was never disclosed in her police video statement or at the time of her initial disclosure to her mother. While the complainant's evidence was at first inconsistent about whether she had a Barbie bike in her toy room or the existence of a trampoline in the home, she did confirm she had a Barbie bike and also confirmed having a trampoline. Ms. H. also stated there was a bike, although she was not sure whether one would call it a Barbie bike, and there was a small, indoor trampoline upstairs in their old house which was sold in 2018. Mr.

H. could not recall a trampoline but made reference to a training bike that was hardly used. [ 29 ] The complainant knew what a Barbie was because in her cross-examination she stated she has two Barbies and she never played with Barbies, in the same manner she did not play with Lego but she liked playing with her teddies.

In her mind, she was also aware of what a toy room was, and she was able to articulate where that room was, which she said was upstairs beside her mom's bedroom. [ 30 ] When asked about what her mom told her when she told her mom about being in the toy room when her dad touched her, she said her response was to tell the truth.

Therefore, while some of her answers may have been disconnected with the questions asked, she was generally able to provide answers related to the questions beyond just saying "yes" or "no". [ 31 ] With respect to the significance of the trampoline, when the officer asked where inside her father's house the offence occurred, the complainant connected the alleged offence to a trampoline by alleging that after the alleged touching, her father took her clothes off and dropped her on the trampoline to which she objected.

When the officer asked who had the trampoline, the complainant clearly stated her dad did (page 40 of Exhibit 5). While she was not suggesting that the offence occurred on the trampoline, she clearly connected the trampoline to her father's house. [ 32 ] As cross-examination progressed, leading questions were asked of the complainant which gave the flavour that the offence actually happened in her old house, where the complainant lived with her mother and uncle, and that it happened in their toy room. That there were candies in the toy room where she would eat Starbursts.

Leading questions and rephrased suggestions were put to her where she ultimately denied the substance of the alleged offence and the allegation. [ 33 ] While leading questions are an appropriate manner of questioning in cross-examination, when dealing with a child witness who is not able to appreciate the import of suggestions, or the fact that they can expand on their answers when faced with a suggestion, the weight the court can attach to this complainant's answers in response to counsel's rephrased suggestions without more, is limited.

Meaning that I cannot attach significant weight to her retraction of the allegations based only on her responses to those suggestions. [ 34 ] In examining the balance of the evidence as presented by the Crown, Cst. Davis' role was limited to taking the complainant's statement. Cst. Land was the primary investigator of the file who requested the complainant's statement be taken by the Surrey Special Victims Unit division, by an officer who was trained in using the Step-Wise technique; here Cst. Davis. [ 35 ] I found the significant points in Cst. Land's evidence to be the following: That Mr.

V.'s address was a Vancouver address; that Ms. S. and Mr. V. took possession of their new home in White Rock on December 11, 2019; Cst. Land's information about the allegation came from Ms. H.; that based on Ms. H.’s information, the complainant had told her that she was in Mr. V.'s apartment and they went into a dark room; that the constable, in taking Mr. H.’s statements, was told by Mr. H. that the complainant had called him "Dad" a few times, and that the investigation did not include checking the H.’s residence for the presence of a trampoline, a toy room and a bike.

[ 36 ] With respect to Mr. H.’s evidence, while he tried to be forthright with the court, I found his evidence guarded with respect to some points. For example, with respect to Mr. V.'s allegations against Mr. H. of being inappropriate when changing H.V.’s diaper, I found it incredible that Mr. H. testified to not recalling being confronted by Mr. V. or being asked to not change the complainant's diaper or blow on her private parts, especially when the allegations appeared important enough for Mr. H. to disclose to his employer, as well as to the police. [ 37 ] While Mr. H admitted to not liking Mr.

V., I found he was downplaying the extent of his dislike of him. Firstly, I find his evidence externally inconsistent with Ms. H.’s and incredible that in the years he lived in the same house together with Mr. V., he could not recall or assess whether he and Mr. V. clashed or did not get along, or not recall being opposed to his marriage to his sister or him being sponsored to come to Canada. [ 38 ] Second, when Mr. H. made the above diaper-changing allegations which occurred in 2016, he did not report it to the police until sometime in 2017, after Mr. V. had already moved out.

I can only assume that this was done for the purposes of the custody dispute post- separation, considering that Mr. H. deposed this information in a family law affidavit made on May 14, 2019. [ 39 ] It is the Crown's position that the court should believe the evidence of the complainant and that time is not an essential element of the offence, the allegations could have occurred at any point in time and outside of the dates set out in the Information, from technically H.V.’s birth to the date the charges arose. [ 40 ] Mr. V. provided evidence. It is Mr.

V.'s position that the substance of the allegations never occurred. I found his evidence to be forthright, detailed and consistent on the salient points. He was honest about his poor relationship with Mr. H. which was consistent with Ms. H.’s evidence. He was honest and forthright about the diaper-changing allegations brought against him when he moved out back in 2017. [ 41 ] Considering that for the first three months of his arrival in Canada he and Mrs.

H. had to live in a basement suite because the H. family did not allow him in the family home, it supports his position that at least in the beginning, his marriage to Mrs. H. was not favoured by her family. He was honest and forthright about his assessment of the poor relationship he shared with Mr. H. [ 42 ] For the period post-separation I do accept, based on the evidence, that but for one attendance at the former family home in the company of a peace officer, Mr.

V. never returned. [ 43 ] Based on the evidence presented, soon after he moved out, the diaper-changing allegations were brought against him and therefore, he was subject to investigation by the Ministry of Children and the RCMP. Exhibit 9, which is a letter from the Ministry dated November 14, 2017, shows the Ministry concluded their investigation, not finding any protection concerns. [ 44 ] It was Mr. V.'s evidence that he did not have any parenting time with H.V. during this period of time until a JCC was held in December 2017 allowing supervised parenting time as of January 2018.

I accept this evidence. [ 45 ] Furthermore, Ms. H. did not provide specific evidence with respect to parenting time during the time period post-separation until January 2018. It is undisputed that post January 2018 until June 2019, Mr. V.'s parenting time with H.V. was supervised. While post June 2019 the visits technically became unsupervised, based on Ms. H.’s evidence alone, she wanted the parenting time to be supervised and for her to be present because that is what the complainant had wanted and Ms.

H. wanted to make her feel comfortable and protected. [ 46 ] I do not accept her evidence that the reason for her wanting the continued supervision was the diaper incident from 2016 when, despite her not reporting it in 2016, it was reported in 2017 and Mr. V. was already cleared through the Ministry investigation. I further find her evidence internally inconsistent when she said she did not mind providing unsupervised access, but on the other hand stating she wanted the access supervised because of the 2016 allegations, and to also provide comfort to H.V. [ 47 ] The parenting time remained supervised throughout.

Ms. H. attended all the visits in the fall of 2019 except the one on November 28, 2019. The email correspondence filed as Exhibits 2 and 4 suggested that the visits were generally either occurring at the mall or play centres. Mr. V. had intended to have some visits in his new home in White Rock instead of asking relatives to receive them in their home for his parenting time, but that never materialized. Mr. V. and Ms.

S. took possession of their new home in December 2019, but the visits in January and February 2020 remained supervised at the mall, and then the allegations arose where the visits ceased altogether. [ 48 ] I accept that the November 28 visit occurred in Ms. N.'s home. While Ms. N. did not recall the exact date, she recalled it was prior to Christmas in the month of November. It was the only visit H.V. had in her home and where they had pizza and watched Paw Patrol. Ms. N. was present during this visit. H.V. confirmed recalling having pizza and watching Paw Patrol.

Additionally, even if the court were not to accept Ms. N.'s evidence, on Ms. H.’s evidence alone on this point I cannot find that Mr. V. spent time alone with H.V. during the November 28th visit where Ms. H. was not present. It was Ms. H.’s belief that during the November 28th visit, Mr. V. introduced H.V. to his partner, Ms. S., because the complainant was uncomfortable and questioning her as to who the lady was which, based on her description, Ms. H. assumed it was Ms. S. While Ms. H. insisted that Mr. V. told her he took H.V. to his new home in White Rock, this clearly is not the case because Mr.

V. did not take possession of the White Rock condo until December 11, 2019. Furthermore, while Mr. V. still lived in Vancouver at that time, considering the short amount of parenting time, driving to and from Vancouver would not have left any meaningful quality visit between father and child. [ 49 ] I do not accept the submission that the allegations could have occurred on the drive to Ms. N.'s home. Firstly, that was not the complainant's evidence as to where the allegations occurred, and without even taking that into account, H.V. confirmed watching cartoons in the car during the drive.

Based on the emails of November 3, 2019 in Exhibit 2, it appears that the complainant would generally not get in Mr. V.'s car alone which is why, in those emails, he was addressing Ms. H.’s comfort level to be in the car with Mr. V. and H.V. so that he could drive H.V. to different places. It makes sense if a cartoon was played during the drive to give the complainant comfort. No contradictory evidence was presented in this regard. [ 50 ] Based on the evidence presented I cannot make a finding that the complainant has ever been to Mr. V.'s home, or alone with him from January 2018 onwards.

All the visits were essentially supervised, at first by supervisors and then by Ms. H.’s presence. The Crown

has not provided any evidence challenging the quality of supervision that occurred from January 2018, onward. [ 51 ] From a narrower perspective, since the complainant in her statement connected the allegations to the existence of other objects, there is no evidence suggesting the presence of a trampoline, a bike or a toy room in Mr. V.'s home or in any of the premises where supervision occurred. [ 52 ] I should note here that the reason the allegations were believed to have occurred in November 2019 was because based on Ms.

H.’s evidence, a week prior to the allegations being disclosed in February 2020, the complainant told her something about kissing with her dad which she did not take seriously. Ms. H. agreed that no such other disclosure had ever been made prior to the two that were made in February 2020, and that at that time it had been approximately one month since the complainant had seen Mr. V. [ 53 ] With respect to the pre-separation period, Mr. V. left the family home when the complainant was three-and-a-half years old. While the Crown suggests that it is incredible to believe Mr.

V.'s evidence that while he was still living in the matrimonial home he was not alone with H.V. I respectfully disagree. H.V. lived in a home that was shared with Ms. H., her parents, her brother and his wife. Mr. V. had two employment positions at the time which took him outside of the home on a daily basis. This was not challenged. Mr. V. testified that he wanted to spend more time with his daughter but could not, partly because of his work

schedule but also because plans were made for H.V. to have outings or activities with other members of the H. family. No evidence was provided by the Crown to dispute this. [ 54 ] Mr. H. had in fact agreed that he spent more time with H.V. than Mr. V. and, based on Ms. H.’s evidence, this was a point of argument between Mr. V. and Ms. H. With many individuals living in the same residence together as a family and the child running around, it is believable that Mr. V. could not spend time alone with the complainant. [ 55 ] During the three months Mr. V., Ms.

H. and H.V. lived together in the basement suite upon his arrival to Canada, H.V. would have been 10 months to a year old. When Mr. V. moved out of the H. residence, H.V. was three-and-a-half years old. I would have serious concerns with respect to the reliability of these allegations if they occurred while the complainant was between 10 months old to three-and-a-half years of age.

This, aside from the fact that based on Exhibit 9 the complainant was interviewed by both the Ministry of Children and Family and the police shortly after the diaper allegations arose in 2017, and nothing in line with these allegations was ever disclosed. [ 56 ] While I do appreciate the series of authorities on the issue of time frame of the allegations on the Information, and situations where time is an essential element of the offence, despite the concerns I raised previously, based on my assessment of the evidence I find I do not need to decide that issue today.

I should add here that if I were to make a finding that time is not of the essence, there could exist a significant concern with respect to admitting the complainant's videotaped statement under s. 715.1, depending on the date of the offence and the taking of the statement.

Generally speaking, Crown's evidence was geared to the time period set out in the Information, and the lack of evidence for the period prior to that timeframe is glaringly apparent. [ 57 ] Looking at the totality of the evidence, keeping in mind the special considerations to be given to assessing children's credibility, I do have credibility and reliability concerns with the complainant's evidence. I also have concerns with the Crown's case as a whole with respect to the lack and inconsistencies in the evidence presented. [ 58 ] In the W.(D.) analysis I do find Mr. V. evidence credible.

As mentioned, I found his evidence coherent, concise, forthright and detailed. I will therefore acquit him on the first prong of the W.(D.) analysis. However, even if I did not believe Mr. V.'s evidence, the strength of his evidence would have given me a reasonable doubt, based on which I would still acquit him. [ 59 ] Lastly, based on the evidence presented, the Crown has not proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt and as such, even if I was not left in doubt by Mr. V.'s evidence, on the basis of the evidence which I do accept, I would not have been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of Mr.

V.'s, guilt. [ 60 ] Mr. V., rise, please. [ 61 ] I will acquit you on all the counts on this Information. You are free to go. (ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CONCLUDED)