Date: 20150520 Docket: 14/35 Citation: R. v. Hoyles , 2015 NLCA 26

Section 486.4 of the Criminal Code respecting the non-publication of the identity of a complainant or of a witness and any information from which they might be identified applies to this judgment. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN : PETER JACOB ENOIL HOYLES APPELLANT AND : HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN RESPONDENT Coram: Welsh, White and Harrington JJ.A. Court Appealed From: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division (G) 201204G0228 Appeal Heard: May 20, 2015 Judgment Rendered: May 20, 2015 (Orally) Memorandum of Disposition Filed: May 20, 2015 Counsel for the Appellant: Jonathan Regan

Counsel for the Respondent: Vikas Khaladkar MEMORANDUM OF DISPOSITION Welsh J.A.: [1] At the hearing, Mr. Hoyles’ appeal was allowed, the convictions entered by the trial judge were set aside, and a new trial wasordered. [2] The panel considered the written and oral submissions of counsel. We were in agreement that the trial judge erred in law byfailing to apply the principles set out in R. v. W. (D.), (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742, having made no reference to theaccused’s evidence. The Crown conceded that the trial judge’s decision must be set aside.

We agreed. [3] This is not a case in which it would be appropriate to enter acquittals on the charges for which Mr. Hoyles was convicted. Pursuant to section 686(2)(

a) of the Criminal Code, a verdict of acquittal on appeal will be entered only where there is no evidence uponwhich a properly instructed trier of fact could reasonably have convicted the accused. That was not the case here. The appropriateremedy was a new trial. _____________________________ B. G. Welsh J.A.