R. v. R.R., (2003) 169 O.A.C. 180 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 11, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2003), 169 O.A.C. 180 (SCC);2003 SCC 4;300 NR 230;[2003] SCJ No 3 (QL);169 OAC 180;171 CCC (3d) 575;10 CR (6th) 1;[2003] 1 SCR 37;[2003] CarswellOnt 366

R. v. R.R. (2003), 169 O.A.C. 180 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2003] O.A.C. TBEd. FE.068

R.R. v. Her Majesty the Queen

(28933; 2003 SCC 4; 2003 CSC 4)

Indexed As: R. v. R.R.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour, JJ.

February 11, 2003.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of sexually assaulting a developmentally delayed neighbour. The complainant was not mentally capable of testifying at the time of trial and her previously videotaped statements to police were admitted into evidence. The accused appealed from conviction and sentence.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Feldman, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported at 151 O.A.C. 1, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 687

Sexual offences - Evidence - Hearsay - The accused was convicted of sexually assaulting a developmentally delayed neighbour - They had fondled and kissed each other for a few minutes - The complainant was a 21 year old woman with a functional age of an 8-10 year old child - The accused appealed, arguing that the trial judge had erred in admitting into evidence the complainant's previously videotaped statements to police as both reliable andnecessary where the complainant was not mentally capable of testifying at the time of trial - There was expert evidence that the complainant might be capable of testifying at some future time if she responded well to treatment - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal - There was evidence before the trial judge on which he could conclude that there was no reasonable possibility that the complainant would be available to testify within an acceptable period of time.

Criminal Law - Topic 5420

Evidence and witnesses - Witnesses - Out of court statements (incl. videotaped statements) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 687 ].

Evidence - Topic 1527

Hearsay rule - Exceptions and exclusions - Where admission of hearsay necessary and evidence reliable - [See Criminal Law - Topic 687 ].

Counsel:

William R. Gilmour, for the appellant;

Karen Shai, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

[not disclosed]

This appeal was heard on February 11, 2003, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The following decision was rendered orally for the court in both official languages on February 11, 2003, by Iacobucci, J.