R. v. C.
Mr. C was accused of sexually assaulting the complainant while she was in such an intoxicated state that she could not possibly consent. The jury heard a lot of damaging evidence against Mr. C. For instance, he had lied to the police several times, including denying that he had ever touched the complainant. The DNA evidence led by the Crown proved otherwise. Pages of text messages between himself and the complainant, which could have easily been construed as him admitting that he knew the complainant was incapacitated were also admitted into evidence.
Despite these bad facts, Ms. Bristow called Mr. C to testify about what actually happened that night. He had to explain that the complainant vomited in the car on the way to his house, that she had fallen getting out of the car and in his bathroom. He even had to own up to being a cheater, as his girlfriend was sleeping in the same bed where the sexual assault allegedly occurred.
After a full day of deliberations, the jury came back with a unanimous verdict of not guilty.
Mr. C was facing 4-5 years in the penitentiary but was able to go home a free man, putting a three-year ordeal behind him.
R. v. C.
Mr. C had ongoing disputes with a neighbour in his apartment building who had been harassing him for months. He called the police numerous times, but nothing was ever done. The complainant, eager to get Mr. C and his two young boys kicked out of the building alleged that Mr. C had assaulted her and claimed to have a broken clavicle bone.
Ms. Bristow has put many hours in to prepare Mr. C to take the stand, and he was ready to finally have an opportunity to tell his side of the story, including the history of threats, insults and violent behaviour towards Mr. C by the complainant. However, prior to him even having an opportunity, the Crown asked the presiding judge to dismiss the charge of Assault Cause Bodily Harm on the third day of trial after a tactical cross-examination of the complainant by Ms. Bristow.
R. v. H.
Ms. H was in a toxic relationship with her boyfriend. He accused her of stabbing him with a knife resulting in charges against her for Assault Cause Bodily Harm and Assault with a Weapon. The sole issue was whether the Crown had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ms. Bristow's cross-examination was calculating and effective, as it convinced the judge that the complainant was not telling the truth. He was found to have downplayed several things that were unfavourable, including his drug use and his flagrant breach of court orders on numerous occasions, including on the date in question. As a result of Ms. Bristow’s questioning, Her Honour had a reasonable doubt that Ms. H commit the offences and she was found not guilty. Ms. H was very thankful as she did not have a criminal record and would have lost her job, which would be unduly onerous on her as she was the single mother of two children.
Here, I post various success stories I have obtained for my clients in court.