Toronto Criminal Lawyer - Sexual Interference Charges dismissed

Rick's Case — Sexual Interference — Dismissed

Background
Rick's son was having a sleepover at their house. Well after midnight, the boys were still being rowdy in the basement. Rick's wife wakes him up. "Go down and quiet those boys," she says. Rick reluctantly heads downstairs. He tells the boys to be quiet and to go to sleep. He pulls the blankets up over some, and pats others on the head. Ten minutes into Rick's third visit, the boys are quiet, and many are asleep. Rick crawls upstairs to rejoin his wife. Finally, the house is quiet. The next day Rick is shocked to find the police at his door. He is being charged with invitation to sexual touching and sexual interference. Over thirteen stressful months Rick waited for trial. Our defence was that the touching was quite innocent. At trial, Rick did not testify, but his wife did. The Judge dismissed the charges.

Rick's Case
Police Report

Between
Her Majesty the Queen, and Rick K.

[1996] O.J. No. 5178

Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division)
Oakville, Ontario
Sharpe Prov. J.

Oral judgment: November 25, 1996.
(8 paras.)

Charges:	Sexual Interference (2x) and Invitation to Sexual Touching, Criminal Code, ss. 151-152
Counsel:	Judy Mungovan, Assistant Crown Attorney, Oakville Craig Penney, Criminal Defence Lawyer, Toronto

¶ 1 SHARPE PROV. J. (orally): — The evidence of the complainant in this matter is that he was touched by you on the buttocks and that you rubbed the back of his legs once during the evening. It is noted that any touching was over the blanket that covered the complainant. The complainant said at first it was a sleeping bag and then a blanket and then the complainant said he didn't remember whether it was a sleeping bag or a blanket. The complainant can't remember if you pulled the sleeping bag up to cover his back or chest.

¶ 2 The second incident of touching that took place the complainant indicated that you put his arm between your legs, that it was not on your thighs, but on cross-examination it appeared to the Court that you were merely attempting to get the complainant to go to sleep and the complainant's evidence on cross-examination was not that you had squeezed his arm between your legs but at the time described the arm was placed on top of your thighs while you were in a kneeling position.

¶ 3 This evidence is not strictly consistent only with sexual intention and inconsistent with any other rational conclusion. The evidence is somewhat unreliable and your actions perhaps have been misinterpreted by the young boy.

¶ 4 This Court, being a court of criminal jurisdiction, has to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the touching was for a sexual purpose.

¶ 5 The Court cannot come to that conclusion. The charges are dismissed.

¶ 6 The other count?

¶ 7 MS. MUNGOVAN: Withdrawn, please.

¶ 8 THE COURT: Count number two is withdrawn at the request of the Crown.