R. V. CUREATZ Date:, 2014 BCPC 116

Citation: R. V. CUREATZ Date: 20140515 2014 BCPC 0116 File No: 41690-1-K Registry: Penticton IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. JARED BROCK CUREATZ ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE R. R. SMITH Counsel for the Crown: M. Treddenick Counsel for the Defendant: C. Armour

Place of Hearing: Penticton , B.C. Date of Hearing: May 15, 2014 Date of Judgment: May 15, 2014 [ 1 ] Before me today for trial is the accused Jared Cureatz. He is charged with assaulting his girlfriend Kodie Armstrong on the 8th of March 2013. Neither police nor Crown ever had any statement, verbal or written, from any individual claiming any assault. [ 2 ] Circumstances are that on the 8th of March 2013 in Summerland, a school friend of Ms. Armstrong by the name of Megan, received a phone call from Ms.

Armstrong saying that she was breaking up with the accused and asking Megan to come to the residence to pick her up. Megan complied. [ 3 ] When she arrived at the residence she noted Ms. Armstrong had blood in her face and hair, which appeared to have originated from the nose. The accused was nowhere near the two ladies; by that I mean the two ladies were outside the residence having this conversation, and the accused was seemingly somewhere inside the residence. [ 4 ] Ms. Armstrong denied any assault and told her friend that she was no longer needed, that she, Ms.

Armstrong was going to just stay in the residence, that everything was okay. The friend indicated that she could not just leave given her observations of the blood on the face and in the hair, and that if she left she would be calling police. [ 5 ] Ms. Armstrong again denied any assault; again asked her friend to leave and that's what happened; her friend left, but rather than calling the police, the friend called immediate family of Ms. Armstrong. They encouraged the friend not to call the police. Rather what happens is three individuals return to the residence in question, namely Ms. Armstrong's father, Ms.

Armstrong's sister and this friend of Ms. Armstrong, Megan. [ 6 ] Now when they arrived Ms. Armstrong's father has a bat in hand and for a second time Ms. Armstrong comes outside the residence, tells them that there has been no assault; tells them that they are trespassing; asks them to leave. In fact there was some gap of time before there was some confrontation between Ms. Armstrong's dad, who had a bat in hand, and the accused, who had a broom in hand. There was no evidence of the accused in any way assaulting Ms.

Armstrong's father, but as the party of three got back in their vehicle and left, they believed, when leaving, that they heard a gunshot. [ 7 ] Police had been called and they arrived to investigate. Eventually the officer spoke with Ms. Armstrong on the phone, directing that she come out of the residence. For some 20 minutes Ms. Armstrong chose not to come out of the residence. The police then spoke during that 20 minute window by some type of a megaphone, where he when within some significant distance, would be able to hear this conversation. [ 8 ] Eventually after 20 minutes Ms.

Armstrong does leave the residence and speaks with the police, yet again a third time denying ever being assaulted. According to the friend Megan, at this time Ms. Armstrong seemed cleaned-up; did not have blood everywhere, yet the corporal testifying said he could still see at least some residual blood dripping from the nose; really nothing too inconsistent about any of that. [ 9 ] Eventually, again with megaphone in hand, the accused is asked to come out; he does. He complies with all of the commands. He is shirtless and shoeless, complying with demands.

He gets arrested and away he goes into custody. [ 10 ] Crown never having any statement, verbal or written, from anyone, claiming any assault, still charges the accused with assault and we have this trial date today where the complainant yet again a fourth time says, "I was never assaulted," that, "I fell down a couple of days earlier, having a serious nose bleed that took multiple days to clean up and to stop;" basically the same thing that she told everyone else on all of the other occasions, yet at the end of the trial, Crown is asking that I make some inference that she was assaulted, and that I convict the accused of this assault.

Of course, counsel for the accused makes a non-sufficient evidence motion. [ 11 ] It seems that the roles of the various players are being blurred, hence my going slowly over this particular fact pattern. The conduct of the Crown was different than the conduct of police. The police were exemplary with everything they did in this particular fact pattern. You could not have asked for more, given what circumstance they were called upon to address. They did everything correctly, and by that I mean even arresting the accused.

No problem with all of that, with all of these circumstances and with the investigation in progress. [ 12 ] But Crown has a different role than the police. For most criminal offences Crown has a really high charge approval standard where there is some substantial likelihood of conviction. It is the highest charge approval standard in Canada. In other jurisdictions a lower charge approval standard is required. However in this Province an exception is made to that higher charge approval standard when dealing with domestic violence allegations.

That lower standard is one of not a substantial likelihood, but rather at least a reasonable likelihood of conviction. In other words, for Crown charge approval, it is never the very highest standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt; that is what happens at trial. But generally speaking they need to have some substantial likelihood before it meets the Crown approval of charges; but there is this lower standard that applies in alleged domestic violence where at least some reasonable likelihood needs to be present.

It is not some standard where there is no likelihood, or even some meager crumbs of possibility, there still needs to be some reasonable likelihood or the Crown is duty bound not to proceed. [ 13 ] Here we have a case where there is zero likelihood. Everybody knew before this trial started, it was going nowhere. Crown has to make tough decisions. Their role is not that of the police.

They cannot simply say, "Oh, we are going to cover ourselves by running things when we know that there is no prospect of conviction." [ 14 ] Now it might be a little different if they have a recanting witness, but this is not a case of a recanting witness. This witness

never claimed an assault, so nothing has been recanted. The court is not a place for the writing of fiction, and I believe Crown does not do their responsibility properly, when they allow a matter to proceed when they have no prospect of success, and they definitely are not meeting that minimal reasonable prospect level. [ 15 ] Now I say this, because in recent days there have been multiple really serious matters in this Province. It has everybody scared because they were domestic in nature and death was involved; one at the Coast; one in Clearwater.

So I get it that these things have to be treated really seriously, but it is not the Crown standard that just because they are to be treated seriously that the Crown is to abandon all standards for charge approval, and when I say charge approval, it is an ongoing process.

It could be with a recanting witness that there is a reasonable likelihood at some point, but because of a recanting witness, by the time of trial there is then no longer any reasonable likelihood of conviction. [ 16 ] I ask that a transcript be made of everything that I have said, because this is a systemic issue, whether or not matters are going to proceed to court when there is no prospect and everybody knows it that there is no prospect, but yet the matter proceeds into court and the better part of a morning is taken on that trial. [ 17 ] Of course I agree with Crown that more likely than not this accused assaulted this lady, but the criminal standard that has to be met for charge approval and for conviction is wildly different than what someone suspects.

Here there is no evidence upon which some conviction can be founded, therefore I acquit. (REASONS CONCLUDED)