WD

WD

R. v. Kennedy.  [2015] N.J. No. 107, 2015 NLCA 14

Facts: This is a rather straightforward sexual assault case. The accused forced himself on the complainant, inserted a finger and his penis into her vagina. There was evidence before the court in the form of the complainant’s testimony, a witness’ testimony, text messages between the accused and the complainant, and testimony of the accused’s girlfriend. There was also forensic evidence, and the testimony of a nurse. The accused was convicted. The decision was appealed.

Issue: The central issue before the Court of Appeal was the manner of the trial judge’s reasoning. In particular, the Court had to decide whether the reasonable doubt analysis could properly be used in evaluating individual pieces of evidence, or whether a more cumulative method was needed.

Analysis: The Court of Appeal overturned the decision, and ordered a fresh trial. The Court stated that it is a clear legal principle that the reasonable doubt analysis involves the cumulative effect of all the evidence before the court. The analysis cannot be done in a piecemeal fashion. The Court cites a number of important cases to establish this essential proposition. . R v. J.M.H., 2011 SCC 45, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 197.  R. v. Morin [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345, and R. v. B. (G.)  [1990] 2 S.C.R. 57.

The Court goes on to note that it is not enough that the Judge knew the law in this case. A misapplication of the law will not save the decision, even when there is a clear statement of the correct law.

 In R. v. C.L.Y., 2008 SCC 2, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 5 at paras. 32-33,

“A correct statement of the law can scarcely save its evident misapplication … [J]udges may know the law, yet err in its application.”