Ex-student’s appeal dismissed
The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal has affirmed a former St. Francis Xavier University student’s conviction for sexually assaulting a female student in her dorm room in November 2017.
James Stanton, 22, was found guilty of sexual assault in May 2019 following a trial in Antigonish provincial court.
Stanton did not testify at trial. His lawyer argued the sexual intercourse with the complainant was consensual and her allegation that it was not only emerged after Stanton told her in a text message there would be no further intimacy between them.
In his analysis, Judge Richard Mackinnon found the complainant, whose identity is protected by a publication ban, was a “truthful witness.”
Mackinnon concluded Stanton had taken “unfair advantage” of the young woman, who had a crush on him and wanted a relationship to develop. He rejected the defence theory that the complainant made up the rape allegation because Stanton had dumped her.
The judge imposed a 10month conditional sentence, to be followed by two years’ probation, and ordered Stanton to register as a sex offender for 10 years.
Stanton appealed to the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, which handles appeals of summary convictions. After a Supreme Court judge dismissed the appeal in February 2020, Stanton applied to the Appeal Court for leave to appeal.
In his notice of appeal seeking a new trial, Stanton claimed the provincial court and Supreme Court judges both committed errors of law.
Stanton argued his fundamental presumption of innocence was sidelined by the trial judge, who assumed the complainant’s credibility and failed to consider the whole of the evidence in assessing the ultimate issue of reasonable doubt. He said the Supreme Court judge exclusively applied the "palpable and overriding error" standard of review to the trial judge’s credibility findings when he should have examined the reasons for legal error.
An Appeal Court panel heard the appeal June 9 and unanimously dismissed it in a decision released Tuesday.
The panel — made up of justices Anne Derrick and Cindy Bourgeois and Chief Justice Michael Wood — ruled that Supreme Court Justice Nick Scaravelli’s examination of the question of legal error was “cursory and inadequate.”
“By not affording the appellant the appeal he was entitled to, he erred in law in how he conducted the proceedings,” Derrick wrote for the panel. “Consequently, I would grant leave to appeal.”
The Appeal Court panel then had two options — send the matter back to the Supreme Court for another judge to consider or carry out the function of the summaryconviction appeal court itself.
“The latter option is the appropriate course in this case,” Derrick said. “We are well equipped to step into the shoes of the (Supreme Court) and address the appellant’s grounds of appeal. We have the transcript of the trial evidence and submissions and the trial judge’s reasons. Like the (Supreme Court), we can review the record and determine whether legal error was committed in the assessment of (the complainant’s) credibility and the ultimate issue of reasonable doubt.”
Stanton questioned many aspects of the trial judge’s reasoning, Derrick said. “None, in my view, warrant appellate intervention.”
In his submissions, the appellant “glides over the substantial deference owed to the trial judge’s assessment of credibility,” Derrick wrote.
“He has not persuaded me the trial judge found (the complainant) to be credible and examined the evidence through that lens, disregarding the presumption of innocence. I find the judge, in his analysis of whether it had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that (she) did not consent to sexual intercourse, considered the evidence in its totality.
“I am satisfied he committed no error in his application of the relevant legal principles and how he assessed credibility and reasonable doubt.”