Man convicted of assaulting and sexually assaulting wife gets new trial
man convicted of repeatedly assaulting and sexually assaulting his wife has had the conviction overturned and a new trial ordered. Supreme Court Justice Patrice Abrioux concluded that the husband assaulted the complainant on numerous occasions starting shortly after the marriage began. i want to sell my hermes replica constance box purse
man who was found guilty of assaulting and sexually assaulting his wife has had the conviction overturned on appeal and a new trial ordered. in 2006, and had three children together. Supreme Court Justice Patrice Abrioux concluded that the husband assaulted the complainant on numerous occasions starting shortly after the marriage began.
The assaults resulted in the complainant suffering cuts, bruises, abrasions, black eyes and injuries to her wrist.
Starting in 2009, the judge found, the husband forced his wife to have non consensual sex on a regular basis. Two of the sexual assaults involved the use of a knife, in August 2014 and in August 2015, after which the couple separated.
The husband testified at trial and flatly denied that he had ever assaulted his wife in any way, but the judge didn’t believe him and found him guilty. Court of Appeal on Friday, he had the conviction overturned.
One of the grounds of appeal was that Crown counsel at trial had improperly cross examined the accused in such a way that it rendered the trial unfair and amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
On appeal, the prosecution conceded that Crown counsel had gone too far during the cross examination, but argued that the result of the improper questioning had no impact on the trial’s outcome and did not prejudice the accused. Court of Appeal Justice Lauri Ann Fenlon disagreed, finding that the questions, which asked the accused to explain or account for the evidence of other witnesses, undermined the fairness of the trial.
She noted that the trial judge had relied on the cross examination as a basis for rejecting the accused’s evidence and for finding that it did not raise a reasonable doubt.
“The prohibition on asking an accused to comment on the veracity of other witnesses is one of long standing,” said Fenlon. “It is highly regrettable that the trial unfolded as it did.”
Fenlon concluded that the husband had established a miscarriage of justice.
The appeal was allowed, the convictions set aside, and a new trial ordered. Justice John Hunter and Justice Susan Griffin agreed with Fenlon’s reasons.
Share this article in your social network Share this Story: Copy Link Email Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr.