R. v. Cameron, 2017 ONCJ 757

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE Scarborough – Toronto CITATION: R. v. Cameron , 2017 ONCJ 757 DATE: July 12, 2017 BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN — AND — JAMES CAMERON ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) For the Crown C. Moore For the Defendant S. Pashang Heard: June 23, 2017 REASONS for JUDGMENT RUSSELL SILVERSTEIN, J.: A. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] The accused, James Cameron, is charged with aggravated assault and threatening bodily harm.

These charges arise out of an alleged altercation involving Edward Jones on September 4, 2016. [ 2 ] Edward Jones suffered a significant incised wound to his left arm as well as some less serious abrasions elsewhere on his torso. The principal issue in this trial is whether the Crown has succeeded in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that these injuries were inflicted by the accused, James Cameron. B. EVIDENCE (

a) Introduction [ 3 ] The Crown called two witnesses; the complainant, Edward Jones, and his sister, Stacey Jones. Mr. Cameron called no

evidence. (

b) The Testimony of Edward Jones [ 4 ] The relevant aspects of Mr. Jones’s testimony are as follows: [ 5 ] Mr. Jones, also known as “Bear”, is 31 years old, lives in Toronto and works for Service Master Cleaners. [ 6 ] On September 4, 2016 he, his girlfriend, the accused, and several of Mr. Jones’s friends and acquaintances were spending the afternoon drinking and hanging out, as they often did, on the property of a McDonald’s restaurant near the sidewalk close to the intersection of Lawrence Avenue and Kingston Road. According to Mr.

Jones he was somewhat intoxicated, having consumed six cans of beer between 2:30 and 4:00 pm. The accused was also consuming alcohol. There was no history of animosity between the accused and Mr. Jones. [ 7 ] Late in the afternoon the accused got involved in an altercation with a black male who was unknown to Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones admonished the accused and told him and the black male to “take it elsewhere”. According to Mr. Jones, the accused took exception to Mr. Jones’s intervention and began threatening to stab him. Mr.

Jones, who had been threatened before by the accused, decided to “call his bluff”, as he put it, and told the accused to go ahead and stab him. According to Mr. Jones the accused came at his head with a utility knife. Mr. Jones raised his arms to defend himself and received a large gash to his left arm that required over 60 stitches to close. The accused continued his attack on Mr. Jones until the two were separated by the others in attendance, many of whom, according to Mr. Jones, witnessed the entire event. [ 8 ] The accused took his bicycle and departed in a black GMC van with a man named Jack whom Mr.

Jones knew, while Mr. Jones waited for the police and an ambulance. [ 9 ] When the police arrived, and questioned Mr. Jones about the incident, he recounted the details of the fight and told the police that it was the unknown black male who had caused his injuries and gave a description of him. He also told the police that he had drunk less than he in fact had, and that the perpetrator had fled in a vehicle other than the one used by the accused. [ 10 ] According to Mr.

Jones, his identification of the black male as the perpetrator was a lie he told police so as not to be seen by members of his community as a “snitch”. He returned to see the police a few days later after his sister had confronted him about what he had said to the police. Once sober, he decided that “the truth had to come out”. Having decided to “snitch” Mr. Jones has lived in fear ever since. [ 11 ] The Crown played a video recorded on a nearby CCTV which Mr. Jones said depicted the area where the assault occurred. Some of the minor details of the alleged incident as described by Mr.

Jones were corroborated by the video, but the video was not of any assistance in identifying the perpetrator of the assault. (

c) The testimony of Stacey Jones [ 12 ] Stacey Jones is the complainant’s sister. Late in the evening of September 4, 2016 she learned that her brother was injured and in the hospital. She went there but did not speak to him about the incident at that time. Before eventually speaking to him later at home, she heard others talking about “Jimmy”. She asked her brother about Jimmy and he told her that it was in fact "Jimmy”, that is, James Cameron, who had assaulted him. Stacey emailed the officer in charge and told him that in fact her brother had not been truthful with the police.

She had some further email correspondence with the police wherein she said that she had looked Mr. Cameron up on Facebook and that her brother knew his phone number. On September 7, 2016, she and her brother went back and gave further statements to the police. C. ANALYSIS [ 13 ] I will first deal with the question of whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is responsible for the complainant’s injuries. [ 14 ] Mr. Jones gave his testimony in what appeared to be a sincere and forthright manner, as did his sister, Stacey Jones. [ 15 ] The fact remains, however, that Mr.

Jones’s identification of the accused as the man who slashed him is rendered problematic by his having pointed to someone else as the perpetrator when first questioned by the police. Moreover, his identification of the accused is uncorroborated, notwithstanding the presence of several known witnesses to the event. [ 16 ] Mr. Jones’s explanation as to why he did not identify the accused as the perpetrator to the police, i.e. that he was afraid of being considered a snitch in his community, is also uncorroborated. [ 17 ] While the CCTV video corroborates Mr.

Jones’s description of the incident, it neither contradicts nor corroborates his testimony as to the identity of the perpetrator. Stacey Jones’s evidence corroborates Mr. Jones’s testimony as concerns him having discussed his initial identification of the unknown male with his sister and then subsequently returning to the police with a new version of events, but it offers little insight into his motivation for his initial identification of the black male, nor his decision to revise his account.

[ 18 ] The Crown points to the evidence that there was no animosity between Mr. Jones and Mr. Cameron, and thus no motive for him to falsely accuse him. The sole source of this evidence is, however, Mr. Jones himself and it thus suffers from the same frailties as the other uncorroborated aspects of his testimony: it comes from someone who has given radically inconsistent statements as to the identity of the perpetrator. [ 19 ] In the absence of supporting evidence as to the identification of the attacker, I am left in a state of reasonable doubt on that issue. At least one of the complainant’s accounts is a lie.

On the evidence presented by the Crown at this trial I cannot be sure that Mr. Jones’s trial version is not in that category. D. CONCLUSION [ 20 ] The accused is thus acquitted of both counts. Released on July 12, 2017 Justice Russell Silverstein