R. v. L.A.P., 2000 MBCA 109

• Judge: Philp, Twaddle and Kroft, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: September 21, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: 2000 MBCA 109;(2000), 150 Man.R.(2d) 247 (CA)

R. v. L.A.P. (2000), 150 Man.R.(2d) 247 (CA);

    230 W.A.C. 247

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. NO.025

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. P. (L.A.) (accused/appellant)

(AR 99-30-04164; 2000 MBCA 109)

Indexed As: R. v. L.A.P.

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Philp, Twaddle and Kroft, JJ.A.

October 23, 2000.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of sexual assault of a minor. The complainant was 10 at the time of the alleged offence and 13 at the time of the trial. A videotape of the com­plainant's original complaint was admitted at trial, and the complainant also testified. The accused appealed his conviction.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, Kroft, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal and entered an acquittal.

Criminal Law - Topic 5058

Appeals - Indictable offences - Substitution of verdict - Substitution of verdict of acquittal - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5462 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5462

Evidence and witnesses - Evidence of children - Credibility - The accused was found guilty of sexual assault of a minor - The complainant (M.) was 10 at the time of the alleged offence and 13 at the time of the trial - A videotape of M.'s original statement was entered at trial - M.'s testi­mony was incon­sistent with it - The accused appealed his con­viction - The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and entered an acquittal - While different standards applied to the evidence of children, there were credi­bility issues in M.'s testi­mony - It differed on key points from her initial state­ments to police - The trial judge said that he was convict­ing the accused on M.'s uncorrobor­ated evidence alone - There­fore an ac­quittal should be entered.

Evidence - Topic 5231

Witnesses - Corroboration - Evidence of children - General - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5462 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 1, footnote 1].

R. v. G.B. et al. (No. 2), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 30; 111 N.R. 31; 86 Sask.R. 111; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 200; 77 C.R.(3d) 347, refd to. [para. 1, footnote 2].

R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. R.W., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122; 137 N.R. 214; 54 O.A.C. 164, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. D.R., H.R. and D.W., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 291; 197 N.R. 321; 144 Sask.R. 81; 124 W.A.C. 81; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. C.C.F., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1183; 220 N.R. 362; 104 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; 1 N.R. 322, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. D.C.B. (1994), 95 Man.R.(2d) 220; 70 W.A.C. 220; 91 C.C.C.(3d) 357 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. D.D. (2000), 259 N.R. 156; 136 O.A.C. 201 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Corbett, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 275; 1 N.R. 258, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. A.F.V.D.A. (1995), 102 Man.R.(2d) 19; 93 W.A.C. 19 (C.A.), affd. [1996] 1 S.C.R. 471; 195 N.R. 398, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Hart (W.A.) (1999), 174 N.S.R.(2d) 165; 532 A.P.R. 165; 135 C.C.C.(3d) 377 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Z.L. (2000), 136 B.C.A.C. 60; 222 W.A.C. 60; 144 C.C.C.(3d) 444 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. N.S. (2000), 137 B.C.A.C. 185; 223 W.A.C. 185 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 715.1 [para. 10].

Counsel:

A.M. London, for the appellant;

M.A. Pflug, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on September 21, 2000, before Philp, Twaddle, and Kroft, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. The court delivered its judgment on October 23, 2000, which included the following deci­sions:

Philp, J.A. (Twaddle, J.A. concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 32.

Kroft, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 33 to 44.