Sandeep's Case — Sexual Assault (youth) — Dismissed

Client:  Sandeep C., Accused Youth
Complainant:  Sandeep's female schoolmate
Charge:  Sexual assault, Criminal Code, s. 271

Background:  Imagine chatting with friends at school (or work), sharing a walk home with one of them, engaging in some innocent banter along the way, and then being arrested for sexual assault after arriving home. That's what Sandeep said happened to him. When I first met with Sandeep and his dad, Sandeep was more confused than anything. He had no idea where this allegation was coming from. Though his dad was pretty miffed, Sandeep's faith in his own innocence was almost serene. He wasn't cocky or overconfident, but he was resolute. He denied the allegations.

READ THE POLICE REPORT

Goals:  I explained to Sandeep and his dad that there was virtually no chance of convincing the Crown to withdraw this charge. Although a withdrawal of any charge is always possible, that goal is not something to work towards in a case such as Sandeep's. Nor was a guilty plea in the cards. By the end of our first meeting, our objective had crystallized: to have the charge dismissed at trial.

Strategy:  The complainant was not mistaken. Her story was too well articulated to argue that she had misinterpreted Sandeep's innocent conduct. Either she was telling the truth or she was lying. Our job was to raise a "reasonable doubt" about the truth of her assertions. Sandeep had no idea about why the young girl was lying, and there was nothing in the disclosure that gave us any hint as to why she would make up such a story. They weren't friends. They weren't enemies. In fact, they barely knew one another. I knew we would have to hit this train head on: Sandeep would have to raise a reasonable doubt through his own testimony. Despite our inability to come up with a theory as to why the complainant was lying — something not necessary, of course, but something always useful when found — I was feeling confident about our defence. Sandeep was articulate, polite, and steadfast. I had every reason to believe that he would present well at trial. We scheduled the trial, and patiently waited for the big day.

Results:  The Crown only called the complainant as a witness. I only called Sandeep. Both testified in a straightforward and convincing manner. Even though I strongly believed in my heart that the complainant was lying, I knew that my belief was based on my faith in Sandeep as a person, a faith nurtured over many months working with him and his dad. With the evidence presented, I had to make my submissions to the Judge. I decided not to label the complainant a liar. I took a middle-of-the-road approach. It's not one I employ often, but it's one I felt was appropriate at the time. I first argued that the complainant testified in a straightforward manner, and that, despite some minor improbabilities, her evidence appeared convincing on any objective legal standard. But what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Sandeep's testimony was equally compelling. Just as there was no good reason to reject her evidence, there was no good reason to reject his evidence. The Court had to have — I continued to argue — at least a reasonable doubt as to who was telling the truth. The Judge's reasons make it clear that he was impressed with both Sandeep and the complainant. Having made that finding, the Court was compelled to dismiss the charge.

READ THE JUDGE'S RULING