Ontario criminal | Disclosure
General
Application for production of sexual assault centre records was granted
Accused was charged with sexual offences against his now 38-year-old daughter when she was between ages of two and ten-years old. Complainant initiated charges one year ago explaining that she began to relive abuse at age of 18, in form of nightmares and flashbacks, causing her to seek counselling from sexual assault centre. Complainant also testified that since providing her statement to police, she had number of new memories come back to her, including that abuse started when she was just baby. Crown advised that it intended to call expert evidence at trial related to delayed memory recall in children who had been abused. Accused sought production of sexual assault centre records, pursuant to s. 278.3 of Criminal Code. Application granted. Accused established that records were likely relevant to issue at trial and that their production to court was necessary in interests of justice. Application succeeded at first stage that records be reviewed by court after which decision will be made whether they should be disclosed.
R. v. B. (P.) (Nov. 20, 2015, Ont. S.C.J., Baltman J., CRIMJ (P)890/15) 127 W.C.B. (2d) 87.
Application for production of sexual assault centre records was granted
Accused was charged with sexual offences against his now 38-year-old daughter when she was between ages of two and ten-years old. Complainant initiated charges one year ago explaining that she began to relive abuse at age of 18, in form of nightmares and flashbacks, causing her to seek counselling from sexual assault centre. Complainant also testified that since providing her statement to police, she had number of new memories come back to her, including that abuse started when she was just baby. Crown advised that it intended to call expert evidence at trial related to delayed memory recall in children who had been abused. Accused sought production of sexual assault centre records, pursuant to s. 278.3 of Criminal Code. Application granted. Accused established that records were likely relevant to issue at trial and that their production to court was necessary in interests of justice. Application succeeded at first stage that records be reviewed by court after which decision will be made whether they should be disclosed.
R. v. B. (P.) (Nov. 20, 2015, Ont. S.C.J., Baltman J., CRIMJ (P)890/15) 127 W.C.B. (2d) 87.
