R. v. P.L.R.,

• Judge: Fraser, P.C.J.
• Neutral Citation: 2015 ABPC 168
• Citation: [2015] A.R. TBEd. AU.023,2015 ABPC 168,[2015] AR TBEd AU023
• Date: 27 July 2015
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)

R. v. P.L.R., [2015] A.R. TBEd. AU.023

MLB being edited

Currently being edited for A.R. - judgment temporarily in rough form.

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. AU.023

Her Majesty the Queen v. P.L.R.

(141091298P1; 2015 ABPC 168)

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

Alberta Provincial Court

Fraser, P.C.J.

July 27, 2015.

Summary:

The accused was charged with a series of sexual offences involving his two nieces, his sister's daughters, over a period of seven years in the case of A.S., the older sister, and two years in the case of R.S., the younger sister. When the girls' mother brought these allegations to the attention of the police, videotaped statements were taken of both girls' allegations. Det. Gagne of the child abuse unit conducted the interviews on July 16, 2014, with each child independently, in a "child friendly interview room". A.S. was 16 years old at the time and R.S. was 11. Both girls promised to tell the truth in their interview. Charges were laid on September 23, 2014. The accused elected to be tried by judge and jury and requested a preliminary hearing. The Crown applied under s. 540(7) of the Criminal Code to enter the video interviews as evidence in the preliminary and thereby avoid calling the girls at the preliminary. The defence objected. Further, the defence applied under s. 540(9) to require the girls to appear for cross-examination in any event at the preliminary. The Crown objected.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench found the videotape evidence of both sisters to be both credible and trustworthy (s. 540(7)) and held that they could be marked as exhibits in the preliminary inquiry. The court permitted cross-examination of the oldest sister only. The court stated that "It is only the secondary purpose of a preliminary hearing that would make it appropriate to require a witness to appear for cross-examination. I have already heard sufficient evidence to commit. However, I am satisfied the applicant has shown a legitimate reason to cross-examine A.S., that is to obtain more detail as to each incident in order to assess the quality of her evidence and discover the case the defence has to meet. ... [G]iven her level of maturity she will not likely be vulnerable or traumatized. The court will allow her to testify outside the courtroom if the Crown applies and the court will apply Section 537(1.1) if it deems any questioning to be inappropriate. ... In regard to R.S. I find it not appropriate to allow cross-examination of her, given she is more vulnerable and more likely to be traumatized based on her age and level of maturity. Her evidence involves only two incidents of touching and I am not satisfied cross-examining her will necessarily provide more details that would assist in assessing the quality of her evidence."

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.

Criminal Law - Topic 3500

Preliminary inquiry - General principles - Nature and purpose of preliminary inquiry - See paragraph 30.

Criminal Law - Topic 3576

Preliminary inquiry - Evidence - General - See paragraphs 1 to 39.

Criminal Law - Topic 3577

Preliminary inquiry - Evidence - Unsworn evidence of child - See paragraphs 1 to 14.

Criminal Law - Topic 3581

Preliminary inquiry - Evidence - Cross-examination of Crown witnesses - See paragraphs 15 to 39.

Words and Phrases

Credible - The Alberta Provincial Court discussed the meaning of this word as found in s. 540(7) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 - See paragraphs 8 to 14.

Words and Phrases

Trustworthy - The Alberta Provincial Court discussed the meaning of this word as found in s. 540(7) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 - See paragraphs 8 to 14.

Counsel:

Levi Cammack, for the Crown;

Balfour Der, Q.C., for the Defence.

This voir dire was heard by Fraser, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on July 27, 2015.