R. v. Ross (K.D.), (2008) 328 Sask.R. 167 (PC)

• Judge: Harradence, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: November 24, 2008
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2008), 328 Sask.R. 167 (PC);2008 SKPC 159

R. v. Ross (K.D.) (2008), 328 Sask.R. 167 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] Sask.R. TBEd. JA.030

Her Majesty the Queen v. Kirk David Ross

(Information No. 40558561; 2008 SKPC 159)

Indexed As: R. v. Ross (K.D.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Harradence, P.C.J.

November 24, 2008.

Summary:

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm. Identification was in issue.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found the accused not guilty. The court found that the police investigation was incomplete such that there was considerable doubt as to whether the accused was the attacker.

Criminal Law - Topic 5241

Evidence and witnesses - Identification - Eyewitness identification - An 87 year old woman was allegedly attacked by the accused when she stopped her car in an alley near her apartment to assist the accused, who was at the time lying on the ground - He was charged with assault causing bodily harm - Police picked up the accused near the scene - No photo line-up was conducted - The woman identified the accused in court (i.e., he was in the gallery) - She did not previously know her attacker and some eight months had passed between the attack and the trial - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found the accused not guilty - The court referred to the frailties of identification evidence - The court held that the police investigation (identification process) in this case was incomplete such that there was considerable doubt as to whether the accused was the attacker.

Criminal Law - Topic 5250.1

Evidence and witnesses - Identification - Dock identification (incl. gallery) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5241 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Browne and Angus (1951), 1 W.W.R.(N.S.) 449 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 19, footnote 2].

R. v. Izzard (1990), 38 O.A.C. 6; 75 C.R.(3d) 342 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20, footnote 3].

R. v. Miaponoose (A.) (1996), 93 O.A.C. 115; 2 C.R.(5th) 82 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21, footnote 4].

R. v. Hibbert (K.R.) (2002), 287 N.R. 111; 165 B.C.A.C. 161; 270 W.A.C. 161; 2002 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 21, footnote 4].

R. v. Henderson (R.) (2008), 325 Sask.R. 306; 2008 SKPC 153, refd to. [para. 21, footnote 4].

R. v. Bigsky (J.S.) (2006), 289 Sask.R. 179; 382 W.A.C. 179; 2006 SKCA 145, refd to. [para. 22, footnote 5].

R. v. Keepness (S.C.) (2007), 293 Sask.R. 77; 397 W.A.C. 77; 2007 SKCA 42, refd to. [para. 22, footnote 5].

R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218, refd to. [para. 27, footnote 7].

Counsel:

Maureen M. Longworth, for the Crown;

Erin Layton, for the accused.

This case was heard in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, by Harradence, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on November 24, 2008.