R. v. Sam (M.K.) et al., (1998) 110 B.C.A.C. 115 (YukCA)

• Judge: Hinds, Richard and Donald, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Yukon Territory)
• Case Date: May 27, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Yukon
• Citations: (1998), 110 B.C.A.C. 115 (YukCA)

R. v. Sam (M.K.) (1998), 110 B.C.A.C. 115 (YukCA);

   178 W.A.C. 115

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] B.C.A.C. TBEd. AU.059

Regina (respondent) v. Michael Kenneth Sam, Randal George Tom, Tommy David Tom (appellants)

(No. 97-YU385)

Indexed As: R. v. Sam (M.K.) et al.

Yukon Court of Appeal

Hinds, Richard and Donald, JJ.A.

July 17, 1998.

Summary:

The three accused were convicted by a judge alone of sexual assault, contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code. The accused all appealed.

The Yukon Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 4684

Procedure - Judgments and reasons for judgment - Reasons for judgment - Sufficiency of - The three accused were convicted of sexual assault - On appeal, they argued that the trial judge erred by failing to consider the inconsistencies within the complainant's evidence and the inconsistencies between the complainant's and collateral evidence - The Yukon Court of Appeal held that the judge's reasons demonstrated that he was aware of the inconsistencies - The judge did not err in not explaining in greater detail the results of his consideration of the acknowledged inconsistencies and his reasons for making his findings of fact - See paragraphs 30 to 36.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. R.C. (1992), 49 Q.A.C. 37; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 417 (Que. C.A.), revd. [1993] 2 S.C.R. 226; 153 N.R. 241; 55 Q.A.C. 63; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 428, refd to. [para. 15].

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. 33].

R. v. Kirby (P.J.) (1996), 83 B.C.A.C. 52; 136 W.A.C. 52 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Harper, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 2; 40 N.R. 255; 133 D.L.R.(3d) 546; 65 C.C.C.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Burns (R.H.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656; 165 N.R. 374; 42 B.C.A.C. 161; 67 W.A.C. 161; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 29 C.R.(4th) 113, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. McMaster (R.A.) et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 740; 194 N.R. 278; 181 A.R. 199; 116 W.A.C. 199; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 59 C.R.(3d) 108; 17 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; [1987] 6 W.W.R. 97; 43 D.L.R.(4th) 424, refd to. [para. 37].

Counsel:

Peter Chisholm, for the appellants;

Judy Hartling, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, on May 27, 1998, before Hinds, Richard and Donald, JJ.A., of the Yukon Court of Appeal. Hinds, J.A., delivered the following judgment in Vancouver, British Columbia, on July 17, 1998, for the court.