R. v. Jones, 2012 NBCA 90

COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK 166-11-CA HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN APPELLANT SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE APPELANTE - and - - et - VINCENT JONES RESPONDENT VINCENT JONES INTIMÉ R. v. Jones, 2012 NBCA 90 R. c.

Jones, 2012 NBCA 90 CORAM: The Honourable Chief Justice Drapeau The Honourable Justice Larlee The Honourable Justice Quigg CORAM : L'honorable juge en chef Drapeau L'honorable juge Larlee L'honorable juge Quigg Appeal from a decision of the Provincial Court: October 31, 2011 Appel d'une décision de la Cour provinciale : Le 31 octobre 2011 History of Case: Historique de la cause : Decision under appeal: Unreported Décision frappée d’appel : Inédite Preliminary or incidental proceedings: N/A Procédures préliminaires ou accessoires : s.o.

Appeal heard: September 26, 2012 Appel entendu : Le 26 septembre 2012 Judgment rendered: September 26, 2012 Jugement rendu : Le 26 septembre 2012

Counsel at hearing: For the appellant: Pierre E. Gionet For the respondent: Martine Lanteigne Avocats à l'audience : Pour l’appelante : Pierre E. Gionet Pour l’intimé : Martine Lanteigne THE COURT The appeal is dismissed. LA COUR L'appel est rejeté.

English version of the judgment delivered by THE COURT (Orally) [ 1 ] Had the complainant and the respondent been the only witnesses, it is conceivable in light of his reasons for judgment that the trial judge would have been inclined to render guilty verdicts for each of the three counts in the Information (sexual assault, sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching). That is not the case. [ 2 ] Indeed, the complainant’s father and grandmother testified for the defence and the judge found their testimony contradicted the complainant’s in significant respects.

It is true that the judge expressed reservations regarding the reliability of the grandmother’s testimony, but the situation is entirely otherwise with respect to the testimony of the complainant’s father. The judge accepted his testimony, without hesitation. [ 3 ] That assessment of the credibility and reliability of the father’s testimony caused the contradictions mentioned above to raise a reasonable doubt in the judge’s mind. Accordingly, he acquitted the respondent. [ 4 ] The Attorney General’s appeal must be based on a question of law (see s. 676(1) (

a) of the Criminal Code and R. v. J.M.H. , 2011 SCC 45 , [2011] 3 S.C.R. 197 ). Her appeal raises questions of fact only. Indeed, it appears to have been launched for the purpose of challenging the reasonableness of the verdicts of acquittal. It should go without saying that the Criminal Code provides no right of appeal in respect of those questions ( see Robichaud v. R. , 2012 NBCA 87 ). [ 5 ] Be that as it may, we are of the view that the trial judge did not commit any material error of law in rendering the contested verdicts.

A close examination of the reasons for judgment leads us to conclude the judge simply gave effect to the presumption of innocence and afforded the respondent the benefit of the reasonable doubt he entertained after taking into account all of the evidence submitted for his consideration. [ 6 ] For those reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

_______________________________________ J. Ernest Drapeau Juge en chef du Nouveau-Brunswick ________________________________________ M.E.L. Larlee, j.c.a _______________________________________ Kathleen A. Quigg, j.c.a.