R. v. Crawford (R.A.M.), (2004) 197 B.C.A.C. 129 (CA)

• Judge: Southin, Rowles and Prowse, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: May 21, 2004
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2004), 197 B.C.A.C. 129 (CA);2004 BCCA 285

R. v. Crawford (R.A.M.) (2004), 197 B.C.A.C. 129 (CA);

    323 W.A.C. 129

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JN.006

Regina (respondent) v. Rushayne Anne Marie Crawford (appellant)

(CA031308; 2004 BCCA 285)

Indexed As: R. v. Crawford (R.A.M.)

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Southin, Rowles and Prowse, JJ.A.

May 21, 2004.

Summary:

The accused appealed her convictions for assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm and possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace on the ground that the verdicts were unreasonable.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dis­missed the appeal.

Courts - Topic 583

Judges - Duties - Re reasons for decisions - An accused, in appealing convictions on the ground that the verdicts were unrea­sonable, challenged the adequacy of the trial judge's reasons - The British Colum­bia Court of Appeal stated that "the ade­quacy of reasons is not a freestanding ground of appeal ... A functional test must be applied; do the reasons, when con­sidered with the rest of the record, allow meaningful appellate review, given the par­ticular facts of the case? The reasons given in this case clearly reveal the basis for the conviction and provide an adequate basis for appellate review." - See para­graphs 36 to 37.

Criminal Law - Topic 4684

Procedure - Judgments and reasons for judgment - Reasons for judgment - Suf­ficiency of - [See Courts - Topic 583 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4865

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Verdict unreasonable or unsup­ported by evidence - The accused was convicted of assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm and possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace - The injuries to the victim were not dis­puted, but the accused, who did not testify, disputed that she was the person who inflicted the injuries - The accused ap­pealed her conviction on the ground that because of inconsistent and implausible statements in the victim's testimony, the verdicts were unreasonable - The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The verdicts were ones that a properly instructed jury, acting judicially, could reasonably render - The inconsisten­cies cited were insignificant because they involved minor details or were peripheral to the assault allegations - This case turned solely on the trial judge's assessment of the victim's credibility, which was entitled to deference by the appeal court because of the trial judge's advantage of seeing and hearing the victim testify - See paragraphs 1 to 39.

Criminal Law - Topic 4865

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Verdict unreasonable or unsup­ported by evidence - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Southin, J.A., stated that "there are too many unmeritorious assertions of 'unreasonable' verdict made in this court. ... when the issue ... is that the verdict is unreasonable, the court is entitled to give weight to the absence of evidence from the appellant. Here the appellant did not give evidence. Thus, there was no evidence to the contrary on the critical point of who inflicted the in­juries which the complainant undoubtedly suffered. In the circumstances of this case, arguments about inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence are mere petti­fogging. When an accused does give evi­dence to the contrary, then the task of this court may be much more complex because, whatever may be said about standards of review, the upholding by an appellate court of the conviction of an accused who is, in fact, innocent, is more than an em­barrassment - it is a disgrace." - See para­graphs 42 to 47.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Burke (J.) (No. 3), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 474; 194 N.R. 247; 139 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 147; 433 A.P.R. 147, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Z.L. (2000), 136 B.C.A.C. 60; 222 W.A.C. 60; 144 C.C.C.(3d) 444; 2000 BCCA 169, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Horton (D.F.) (1999), 120 B.C.A.C. 70; 196 W.A.C. 70; 133 C.C.C.(3d) 340 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. W.S. (1994), 70 O.A.C. 370; 90 C.C.C.(3d) 242; 18 O.R.(3d) 509 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. R.W., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122; 137 N.R. 214; 54 O.A.C. 164, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. R.W.B. (1993), 24 B.C.A.C. 1; 40 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Norman (D.L.) (1993), 68 O.A.C. 22; 87 C.C.C.(3d) 153 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. G.G. (1997), 99 O.A.C. 44; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. V.K. (1991), 68 C.C.C.(3d) 18 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Richardson (1992), 57 O.A.C. 54; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 15 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Sheppard (C.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869; 284 N.R. 342; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50; 633 A.P.R. 50, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. François (L.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 827; 169 N.R. 241; 73 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Braich (A.) et al. (2000), 140 B.C.A.C. 27; 229 W.A.C. 27; 143 C.C.C.(3d) 467; 2000 BCCA 184, refd to. [para. 44].

Counsel:

J.W. Munson, for the appellant;

V.C. Toselli, for the respondent, Crown.

This appeal was heard on May 4, 2004, at Vancouver, B.C., before Southin, Rowles and Prowse, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

On May 21, 2004, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered and the fol­lowing opinions were filed:

Rowles, J.A. (Southin and Prowse, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 40;

Southin, J.A. - see paragraphs 41 to 47.