Trial pro­ceeds for Wind­sor man ac­cused of in­de­cent ex­po­sure

Valley Journal Advertiser - - NEWS - BY COLIN CHISHOLM WWW.HANTSJOURNAL.CA

Gar­nett Fredrick Smith, 67, for­merly of Wind­sor, had his day in court on a re­cent in­de­cent ex­po­sure charge and al­leged breach of his pa­role.

The Oct. 29 trial, which lasted ap­prox­i­mately three hours and in­volved tes­ti­mony from three wit­nesses, in­clud­ing the com­plainant, went through the var­i­ous com­po­nents of the al­leged in­ci­dent.

Many of the de­tails, such as the ex­act lo­ca­tion in Wind­sor where it is al­leged the in­ci­dent oc­curred, can’t be de­tailed due to a pub­li­ca­tion ban pro­tect­ing the iden­tity of the com­plainant.

Smith is al­leged to have ex­posed his pe­nis to a mi­nor on May 28 of this year.

Smith re­ceived three years of pro­ba­tion, with strict con­di­tions, and 90 days in cus­tody, in­ter­mit­tently served on week­ends, for in­ci­dents in­volv­ing two mi­nors for pre­vi­ous con­vic­tions on sex-re­lated charges.

Dur­ing the re­cent trial, the al­leged vic­tim took the stand and said that Smith ex­posed his pe­nis to her. She was un­der 14 at the time.

In his clos­ing state­ment, Crown at­tor­ney Bill Fer­gus­son said the girl gave cred­i­ble tes­ti­mony, say­ing she re­called clearly what took place the day of the in­ci­dent.

“She was very mat­ter-of-fact about what hap­pened,” Fer­gus­son said. “She was cer­tain that she saw what she saw.”

Al­though she was un­able to re­call what Smith was wear­ing the day of the in­ci­dent, Fer­gus­son said, “I doubt her at­ten­tion would have been fo­cused on what he was or wasn’t wear­ing. There’s one point of in­ter­est, if you will.”

He also said that, al­though he’s not re­quired to do so, Smith of­fered no tes­ti­mony of his own and didn’t deny what took place.

Chrys­tal Ma­cAulay, the de­fence lawyer rep­re­sent­ing Smith, sug­gested the com­plainant was fab­ri­cat­ing the in­ci­dent be­cause she doesn’t like Smith due to their pre­vi­ous mat­ters and was mak­ing the al­le­ga­tions as a way to get Smith away from her some­thing she said has clearly worked, as Smith no longer lives in Wind­sor.

“Clearly, the de­fence is sug­gest­ing that these prior of­fences would give this com­plainant le­git­i­mate rea­sons to not like Mr. Smith,” Ma­cAulay said. “She would go so far to say that she hates him. That isn’t sur­pris­ing, given the prior of­fences we’re talk­ing about.”

She also ques­tioned whether or not the com­plainant would have been able to see her client with the amount of ob­struc­tions be­tween them at the time.

“Ei­ther (she’s) fab­ri­cat­ing this event or she’s sim­ply mis­taken of what she saw,” she added.

She also brought up what she de­scribed as gaps or in­con­sis­ten­cies in her tes­ti­mony.

“The things I would as­sume that she would re­mem­ber, she doesn’t.” Ma­cAulay said. “She was quite clear that she could see Smith… that his pe­nis was ex­posed, but she couldn’t re­mem­ber if he was wear­ing shorts or pants… and she couldn’t re­mem­ber what his face looked like at the time.

“She in­di­cated as well that she wasn’t sure where his hands were, they were ei­ther on his legs or his pe­nis. If we as­sume that this was a tun­nel-vi­sion, so to speak, and that she was only look­ing at his pe­nis, then I would sug­gest she should be able to tell us if his hands were on his pe­nis at that time.”

The com­plainant de­nied fab­ri­cat­ing the events dur­ing her tes­ti­mony.

At the con­clu­sion of the trial Oct. 29, Judge Christo­pher Man­ning said he would have his de­ci­sion ready on Nov. 2.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.