Digest: R v Paskimin, 2018 SKPC 54

• Date: September 18, 2019

Reported as: 2018 SKPC 54

Docket Number: PC18040 , 991007357

Court: Provincial Court

Date: 2019-09-18

Judges:

• Scott

Subjects:

• Criminal Law � Assault � Assault Causing Bodily Harm
• Criminal Law � Procedure � Mistrial
• Constitutional Law � Charter of Rights, Section 7, Section 11

Digest: The accused was charged with committing an assault causing bodily harm contrary to s. 267(b) of the Code. The accused and the complainant were in a spousal relationship at the time of the alleged offence. The complainant testified at trial in July 2017 and was examined and cross-examined. She said that she and the accused had been drinking and began arguing. After she informed the accused that she was going to leave him, the accused grabbed her by the throat. She ran outside and the accused pursued her, punching her in the face and biting her. He dragged her by wrists and by her hair as she tried to resist him. Another witness testified that she saw this portion of the attack and called the police. The complainant eventually escaped from the accused because her aunt arrived at the accused�s apartment. The aunt testified that the complainant had bruises and bite marks on her body and she called the police. Before her testimony at trial, the complainant gave a statement to the police which was recorded and then made a written statement. The trial was adjourned to September 2017, but it did not proceed because the complainant went to the courthouse to tell the judge that she had lied when she testified in July. As she was not supposed to be at the trial at that time, she was removed from the courthouse by the police and then arrested because there were outstanding warrants against her. The court was informed that an issue had arisen with respect to the complainant and the trial was adjourned to February 2018 to allow the Crown to investigate. The accused had dismissed his first lawyer during the July portion of the trial and in November 2017, his new counsel obtained permission to withdraw. His next counsel was appointed and she and the Crown sought a further adjournment of the trial in February because the investigation had not been completed and because the defence counsel had just learned of the issue with the complainant. The court initially denied the adjournment but then granted it to May 2018 and directed the Crown to provide disclosure to the defence and to make the complainant available when the trial resumed. In May, the...