An important new decision that came out of the Alberta Court of Appeals (R v Ryon, 2019 ABCA 36) can not only reduce wrongful convictions, but it can also free some of the wrongly convicted and jailed (if appellate lawyers know about it). This video will illustrate just how difficult it is not only for juries to know what to do, but also judges when it comes to reaching the correct verdict for the innocent accused and factually innocent when using what's known as the WD test. As a non-lawyer I try to break it down for you in the video below.
Both the accused and the complainant admitted to consensual heavy petting while on a cot, high on drugs inside of a tent after having met at an outdoor music festival. The woman claimed she said 'no' to penetration, but that when he positioned himself on top of her he did not stop and briefly penetrated her before stopping. The man's defense was that he did not penetrate her at all and did indeed stop when she said 'no'. His conviction was overturned on the basis that the trial judge did not properly apply the credibility assessment when using the W(D) test to the plausibility of both claims. My discussion on this case is in the video below.
Case Study #1: Judge Ignores Major Inconsistencies
A man was accused of historical sexual abuse against a child while he was a minor and was tried in a youth court as a result. The complainant was an adult at the time of the complaint and her evidence mainly relied on the inference that she had a bed wetting problem as a result of ongoing sexual abuse. It was a judge-only trial. The appeal panel found the trial judge failed to resolve major inconsistencies when accepting the account of the complainant as true. My discussion on this case is in the video below.
"Clary Jaxon" takes a critical look at how current social theories and the efforts to instill them compare to the reality of actual social conditions. With a focus on Canadian issues. Check out the STW YouTube channel.