|
Saturday, May 29, 2004 |
| Back up your verdicts, judges warned in ruling |
| Man gets new trial after inadequately explained conviction |
| Appeal court says there's a duty to give reasons for decisions |
|
TRACEY TYLER It was the day before Halloween and Stacey Dodd was led from an Owen Sound courtroom to spend the next 3 ½ years in one of Kingston's most decrepit prisons. Awaiting fate as a convicted child molester, he'd just been found guilty of sexually assaulting a young girl.
To make things even scarier, Dodd didn't know why.
Although he was adamant he didn't commit the crimes - and had witnesses to support him - the trial judge, Madam Justice Julia Morneau, barely discussed his side of the story in her 38-page ruling convicting him on Oct 30, 2000, of six incidents of sexual touching.
In fact, the trial judge spent little more than a page considering the case Dodd put forward in his own defence. She said she didn't believe him, but didn't bother to analyze his testimony or explain why.
The Ontario Court of Appeal overturned Dodd's conviction and ordered a new trial earlier this week because Morneau didn't do her job. The prosecution's case against Dodd was "far from overwhelming" and she had a duty to give "a reasoned explanation" for rejecting his testimony, the court said.
It was the second time in a week the appeal court overturned someone's conviction because of serious deficiencies in a trial judge's ruling. Morneau is also the third judge of the Ontario Court of Justice to be taken to task in recent months for issuing inadequate judgments.
Trial judges have a duty to give reasoned decisions, spelling out why they believe or don't believe a witness, said Mr. Justice John Laskin, who wrote Wednesday's decision on behalf of an appeal court panel that included Justices Stephen Goudge and Janet Simmons.
It's not only part of the duty they owe the public, accused people and appeal courts - which are often asked to review lower court rulings - it's "a safeguard" against wrongful convictions and acquittals, he said.
In overturning a conviction for similar reasons in another case last week, Laskin said giving detailed reasons for judgment is also an important form of "self discipline" for judges. If they can't explain in writing why they don't believe someone, maybe their conclusions aren't reliable, he said.
The process of trying to undo Dodd's conviction involved a complicated four-year legal journey and a lawyer who effectively volunteered his time to help. After he was convicted, just when things couldn't seem any darker, Dodd was denied legal aid to launch an appeal.
Ontario's legal aid plan felt his appeal had no merit. Toronto criminal lawyer Gregory Lafontaine began assisting Dodd with his appeal while acting as a duty counsel for penitentiary inmates in Kingston. He later tracked down fresh evidence that the complainant had recanted her testimony.
At Dodd's trial, the complainant, now 16, admitted to a history of lying and that she initially exaggerated the extent of the alleged abuse by saying she'd been sexually assaulted "thousands of times." Morneau spent nine pages of her decision assessing the complainant's testimony in detail, ultimately concluding she could not have invented her claims.
By contrast, she dealt with Dodd's testimony in a few words, saying it didn't leave her, with "reasonable doubt."
"I do not believe Mr. Dodd when he denies the sexual activity," she said. Courts have pointed to similar problems in other recent cases, including:
At Dodd's trial, the prosecution's case depended on the word of the complainant. The prosecutor never challenged Dodd's assertion that he didn't commit the crimes. At one point, even Morneau admitted it would have been "dangerous" for him to have done some of the things the complainant alleged.
Lafontaine said his client served about 10 months in prison before Laskin released him on bail in August, 2001. At that point, the proceedings were put on hold so a transcript of Dodd's trial could be ordered. The appeal hearing resumed last December.
Dodd was required to surrender back into custody before the court released its decision. |
On May 18, the court overturned the sexual assault conviction and
eight-month jail sentence imposed on Yagianath Maharaj by Mr. Justice
Robert Main. After a lengthy trial in Barrie, Main dispensed with
Maharaj's 97 pages of testimony in a single line: "I reject outright Mr.
Maharaj's denials."