R. v. Kelly (S.), (2015) 360 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 145 (NLPC)

• Judge: Gorman, P.C.J.
• Court: Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court (Canada)
• Case Date: August 22, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (2015), 360 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 145 (NLPC);2014 NLPC 1313

R. v. Kelly (S.) (2015), 360 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 145 (NLPC);

    1118 A.P.R. 145

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. JA.027

Her Majesty the Queen v. Sean Kelly

(2014 NLPC 1313A0227)

Indexed As: R. v. Kelly (S.)

Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court

Gorman, P.C.J.

January 27, 2015.

Summary:

The accused, a police officer, was charged with making an indecent telephone call (Criminal Code, s. 372(2)), and making a false statement to the police (s. 140(1)(b)). The essence of the allegations was that the accused made an indecent telephone call to a young woman at her place of employment and subsequently misled the police by making a false statement implicating another person. The Crown sought to introduce as similar fact evidence a series of telephone calls allegedly made by the accused to two other women.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court held that the evidence was admissible.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Editor's Note: For related decisions in this matter see (2015), 360 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 91; 1118 A.P.R. 91 and (2015), 360 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 165; 1118 A.P.R. 165.

Criminal Law - Topic 5213

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Similar acts - When admissible - The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court summarized the principles applicable to the introduction of similar (or other) act evidence - See paragraph 67.

Criminal Law - Topic 5213

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Similar acts - When admissible - In October 2012, a young woman (AH) received a telephone call in which the male caller made sexual comments - Telephone records showed that the calls came from the police-issued cell phone of a police officer (Kelly) - Kelly was charged with, inter alia, making an indecent phone call - He argued that the calls were made by a different person who used his phone without his knowledge - The Crown sought to introduce as similar fact evidence the following: (1) three calls made to a woman (Z) in May and June 2012, and (2) three calls made to a woman (Y) in September and October 2012 - For each woman, two of the three calls involved the male caller making sexual comments - The documentary evidence established that calls were made from Kelly's police phone to Z in May and June 2012, and to Y in October 2012 - The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court held that the evidence was admissible - The probative value of the evidence was extremely high since it could establish identity, rebut Kelly's defence, and establish a pattern of conduct which defied coincidence and thereby connected Kelly to the calls made to AH - There was no evidence of collusion - There was significant proximity in time, several occurrences, and significant similarities including references to oral sex and the connection to Kelly's phone - Although the evidence had a potential prejudicial effect given the allegations of immoral conduct, this was outweighed by the probative value - See paragraphs 69 to 111.

Criminal Law - Topic 5214.1

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Similar acts - To prove identity of accused - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 5213 ].

Evidence - Topic 1251

Relevant facts - Relevance and materiality - Similar acts - General - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 5213 ].

Evidence - Topic 1256

Relevant facts - Relevance and materiality - Similar acts - To prove criminal conduct - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 5213 ].

Evidence - Topic 1259

Relevant facts - Relevance and materiality - Similar acts - To prove identity - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 5213 ].

Cases Noticed:

Hoch v. The Queen (1988), 165 C.L.R. 292 (H.C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Butorac (D.M.) (2013), 344 B.C.A.C. 76; 587 W.A.C. 76; 2013 BCCA 421, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Hart (N.L.) (2014), 461 N.R. 1; 353 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 222; 1099 A.P.R. 222; 2014 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. J.R. (2012), 332 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 296; 1030 A.P.R. 296; 2012 NLTD(G) 191, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Grant (M.E.) (2013), 299 Man.R.(2d) 202; 590 W.A.C. 202; 2013 MBCA 95, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Fletcher (R.J.) (2013), 542 A.R. 367; 566 W.A.C. 367; 2013 ABCA 74, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Handy (J.), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 908; 290 N.R. 1; 160 O.A.C. 201; 2002 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Larsen (G.) (2012), 533 A.R. 55; 557 W.A.C. 55; 2012 NWTCA 9, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Arp (B.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 339; 232 N.R. 317; 114 B.C.A.C. 1; 186 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. M.H.C., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 763; 123 N.R. 63, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Robertson, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 918; 75 N.R. 6; 20 O.A.C. 200, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Jesse (L.W.), [2012] 1 S.C.R. 716; 321 B.C.A.C. 49; 547 W.A.C. 49; 2012 SCC 21, refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Kembo (C.E.) (2014), 359 B.C.A.C. 172; 615 W.A.C. 172; 2014 BCCA 307, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. L.E.D., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 111; 97 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. White (O.) (2014), 314 O.A.C. 229; 2014 ONCA 64, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. F.F.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 697; 148 N.R. 161; 120 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 332 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 59].

Rich v. Bromley Estate et al. (2013), 336 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 107; 1043 A.P.R. 107; 2013 NLCA 24, refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. L.B.; R. v. M.A.G. (1997), 102 O.A.C. 104; 35 O.R.(3d) 35 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. T.I.E. (2014), 306 Man.R.(2d) 21; 604 W.A.C. 21; 2014 MBCA 40, refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Atlin (E.J.) (2003), 182 B.C.A.C. 22; 300 W.A.C. 22; 2003 YKCA 5, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Villeda (G.M.) (2011), 502 A.R. 83; 517 W.A.C. 83; 269 C.C.C.(3d) 394; 2011 ABCA 85, refd to. [para. 95].

R. v. Conway (V.) (2002), 218 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 139; 653 A.P.R. 139 (N.L.T.D.), refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. T.L.M., [2012] 1 S.C.R. 233; 427 N.R. 1; 319 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 354; 992 A.P.R. 354; 2012 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 99].

Counsel:

V. Khaladkar, for Her Majesty the Queen;

J. Merrigan, for Mr. Kelly.

This matter was heard at Corner Brook, N.L., on August 22, 2014, before Gorman, P.C.J., of the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court, who released the following judgment on January 27, 2015.