R. v. J.D. – October 2023

Our client was alleged to have abused his ex-wife over multiple years with numerous assaults and other offences. Due to the complainant attempting to avoid answering questions on cross-examination, this matter went significantly beyond the original expected four days of trial. Our lawyers confronted the complainant with hundreds of text messages to establish that the complainant was lying about the nature of the relationship. Our cross examination caught the complainant in multiple inconsistencies and when confronted on them, she refused to answer further questions. Due to her answers in cross examination, our lawyers were able to bring in a last-minute witness who established she was not telling the truth. Do to our questioning, the judge concluded that her testimony was “intentionally misleading” and not accepted. Despite numerous photographs of injuries and an audio recording, our client was convicted of only a single count of uttering threats as that offence was captured by the audio recording.