Former educational assistant acquitted in child sex assault case

COBOURG - A former Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board educational assistant who was accused of sexually assaulting a child was found not guilty due to lack of evidence and inconsistent witness testimony.

Cobourg resident Devin Langille appeared in a Cobourg courtroom throughout mid-December for a multi-day judge-alone trial, which ended on Dec. 18 with Justice Susan Woodley delivering the verdict.

“The real issue in this case is whether the events alleged by the complainant ... ever took place,” the Justice said.

“It is not enough for me to believe that Devin is probably or likely guilty of an offence.

“In those circumstances I must find him not guilty, because the Crown would have failed to satisfy me of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Langille was charged in May 2016 with sexual assault and sexual interference alleged to have occurred between 2010 and 2012.

Languille was on the public school board’s educational assistant supply list from 2013 to 2016 but no longer works for the board. Education assistants work alongside teachers and offers support for an individual or group of students.

Court heard testimony from the complainant, her friend, her sister, her mother, her father and grandmother.

The judge explained their testimony was “entirely inconsistent with that provided by (the complainant),” while the complainant’s evidence lacks internal and external integrity and consistency.

“(The complainant’s) credibility is minimal,” the Woodley said. “The reliability of (the complainant’s) evidence is also minimal and extremely questionable in any event.”

The complainant testified that she had a close relationship with Langille and believed to be his girlfriend as early as the age of six or seven.

The complainant, now 16, further testified Langille would hold her hand and kiss her between the ages of six and eight.

The judge concluded that none of the witnesses provided any “independent knowledge of the alleged offences” and they all provided evidence “with a backwards facing kaleidoscope.”

“Hindsight is not always 20/20,” the judge said, “certainly not in the context of this case.”

The complainant is the only person with actual knowledge of the facts that form the essential elements of the alleged offences, Woodley explained, which meant it was her responsibility to determine the credibility and reliability of the complainant’s evidence.

“The reliability of the evidence is what is paramount,” Woodley said.

“There were several very troubling aspects about (the complainant’s) testimony.”

First, the complainant “admitted to lying to defence during crossexamination at the preliminary inquiry,” the judge noted.

“This admission of the lie was recorded by the transcript and was admitted again at trial. Crown counsel attempted to rehabilitate the evidence and suggested (the complainant) was confused.

“I do not accept this submission.” The judge argued the complainant “clearly stated that she lied to defence counsel, and when asked why she lied, she replied, ‘I don’t know’. The lie was not about a peripheral matter as suggested by Crown counsel, nor was it careless,” Woodley argued.

“(The complainant) purposely lied under oath, admitted to lying and when caught and questioned could not explain why she lied.”

Furthermore, and “most unsettling,” was that it became apparent that the complainant contacted two witnesses prior to trial — her sister and friend — and provided them with her version of events after it was determined they would be witnesses.

The difference between their events is “significant” the judge said, and “if accepted would have provided corroboration to (the complainant’s) version, which cast a sinister shadow on the events that occurred at the school and by connection would have cast a sinister shadow on Devin’s character, motives and actions.”

When asked why she told her friend her version of events, the complainant admitted her friend “didn’t know what any of this was about.”

It also became apparent the complainant’s sister was contacted before the trial and was told “what happened to (the complainant) but didn’t tell her what she was going to say.”

The sister’s evidence was also inconsistent with her previous police statement, the judge said.

Woodley expressed having “great empathy and concern” for the complainant, because of the nature of sexual assault trials.

As “they must testify in courts open to the public, both at preliminary inquiry and then at trial.

“Both times they must describe in tremendous detail very intimate, embarrassing and painful events, about the incidents in question and also about their personal lives.

“It is the obligation of defence counsel to vigorously challenge a complainant’s credibility and reliability of her testimony.”

As a judge, she explained it’s her duty to ensure her decision is not based on sympathy, prejudice for either the complainant or the defendant, and to ensure the decision is not influenced by outside pressures from society or the media.

“Despite my empathy and concern, I have grave doubts as to both the credibility and the reliability of (the complainant’s) evidence,” Woodley said. “While I can excuse certain inconsistencies and vagueness in (the complainant’s) evidence, I cannot overlook positive, decisive assertions that are inconsistent with common sense in the totality of evidence.

“The law provides that if the Crown has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the offences I must acquit.”