Sexual assault trial ends; matter returns to court Jan. 31 for verdict

Crown and defence make final submissions in case involving charges against mother of complainant

The underlying issue in a sexual assault trial before the P.E.I. Supreme Court is a custody battle between the accused and the complainant, says the defence lawyer on the case.

That trial ended Tuesday with the Crown and defence making their submissions before Chief Justice Tracey Clements in Charlottetown.

The accused faces sexual assault and sexual touching charges involving allegations she put her hands inside her daughter’s underwear and fondled her when the complainant was around nine years old.

During the trial, the court heard the accused has had custody of the complainant’s daughter, and the allegations were first made to child protective services.

In his submissions, defence lawyer Isaac Quinn said the accused was trying to regain custody but admitted she didn’t participate in the court process.

The complainant only reported the allegations after her mother applied for a child tax benefit, Quinn said.

Quinn said there was alibi evidence to show the complainant and her mother didn’t live in the house where the accused was alleged to have committed the offence at the time when it was alleged to have happened.

The incident was alleged to have happened between June and September 2000.

In order for Clements to convict the accused, she must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the woman committed the offence during that time period.

Quinn said the complainant‘s testimony gave a range of possible years during which the alleged incident could have happened.

In his submissions, Crown attorney Jeff MacDonald said two people testified the complainant told them several years ago about an alleged incident involving her mother.

That included a man who testified Tuesday that he was a friend of the complainant and she told him in 2007 about an incident involving her mother touching her in a sexual way.

The version of events he testified the complainant told him was different in some ways than what she said in court.

MacDonald said there was no evidence the complainant had motivation to fabricate a story about the alleged incident when she told the witnesses about it.

A publication ban prevents the release of any details that could identify the victim.

The matter will be back before the court on Jan. 31 for Clements’s verdict.