Ray New­man with­draws ap­pli­ca­tion for bail

The Telegram (St. John’s) - - LOCAL - BY GLEN WHIFFEN glen.whiffen@thetele­gram.com

Last Fri­day a hear­ing was held in the Court of Ap­peal New­found­land and Labrador to ar­gue a bail-pend­ing-ap­peal ap­pli­ca­tion filed by Ray New­man. New­man, cur­rently serv­ing a 60-day prison term for as­sault­ing an ex-girl­friend, has filed no­tice to ap­peal the con­vic­tion and sen­tence he re­ceived last month, and had wanted to be re­leased from cus­tody un­til the ap­peal is heard.

The jus­tice hear­ing the bail ap­pli­ca­tion was sched­uled to hand down a de­ci­sion on Tues­day of this week. A de­ci­sion would likely have had to con­sider the mer­its of the ap­peal.

But just prior to the judge’s de­ci­sion on bail, New­man’s lawyer, Brian Wentzell, filed a no­tice of dis­con­tin­u­ance of the ap­pli­ca­tion for ju­di­cial re­lease.

Crown pros­e­cu­tor Shel­don Steeves, who ap­peared at the hear­ing on the Crown’s be­half, con­firmed the bail ap­pli­ca­tion was aban­doned.

“There was bail pend­ing ap­peal ar­gued on Fri­day (July 6) and on Tues­day we re­ceived no­tice that the de­fence were aban­don­ing their bail pend­ing ap­peal, prior to the court ac­tu­ally mak­ing a de­ci­sion,” Steeves said.

In New­man’s no­tice of ap­peal pa­pers filed with the Court of Ap­peal, he asks the court to set aside the guilty ver­dict and en­ter a not guilty ver­dict in the case. If the court fails to do that, New­man asks that the sen­tence of 60 days in prison be re­placed with a 60-day con­di­tional sen­tence.

Ei­ther way, it’s likely New­man’s sen­tence will ex­pire be­fore the ap­peal is heard.

Dur­ing the trial, New­man’s ex-girl­friend tes­ti­fied the pair had been drink­ing and be­gan ar­gu­ing on the way back to New­man’s Par­adise home af­ter a night out. She told the court that New­man punched her, and that he tried to drag her out of the house by the leg and put his hands around her neck and choked her un­til she blacked out.

Foren­sic pho­tos of the woman’s in­juries showed bruis­ing and swelling around her eye, marks on her cheek and neck, ver­ti­cal scratches on the cen­tre of her chest and abra­sions on her knee.

New­man’s grounds for ap­peal state the trial judge erred on con­sid­er­a­tion (or lack thereof) of phys­i­cal ev­i­dence in that he over­stated the be­liev­abil­ity of the ev­i­dence of the vic­tim and un­der­stated the be­liev­abil­ity of the ev­i­dence of New­man, and in do­ing so failed to find rea­son­able doubt where rea­son­able doubt ex­isted.

In par­tic­u­lar, the doc­u­ments claim the trial judge failed to take into ac­count med­i­cal ev­i­dence filed by con­sent of the Crown and de­fence that the de­fence says con­firms there were no in­juries to the vic­tim’s neck. The doc­u­ments also claim the judge wrongly de­ter­mined that what was de­scribed as red swollen cheeks were con­sis­tent with as­sault.

As to sen­tence, New­man states the judge erred in law by tak­ing the con­sid­er­a­tion of a con­di­tional sen­tence or­der off the ta­ble be­cause New­man had not pleaded guilty or taken re­spon­si­bil­ity for the of­fence.

In 2012, New­man was ac­quit­ted of mur­der­ing his es­tranged wife, Chrissy Pred­ham-new­man, in her Air­port Heights apart­ment five years ear­lier. Dur­ing his mur­der trial, a New­found­land and Labrador Supreme Court judge ruled to ex­clude a por­tion of the ev­i­dence pre­sented by po­lice, say­ing of­fi­cers had made a mis­take by not read­ing New­man his rights un­til 30 min­utes into their in­ter­view with him, at which point he had al­ready told them than he had been at Pred­ham­new­man’s apart­ment the day she died. New­man’s ac­quit­tal was upheld upon ap­peal.


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.