|
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.
0 Comments
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. R. v. N.
Mr. N had cleaned up his life a lot in the last few years after battling a drug addiction. A recent set of domestic charges, however, brought him back before the criminal justice system. Ms. Bristow set a quick trial date and prepared Mr. N to tell his side of the story on the stand. There were only 2 witnesses at trial, the complainant and Mr. N. At the end of the evidence, Ms. Bristow stood up to make submissions. The Judge advised she did not need to hear from her. She indicated that not only she did find Mr. N to be credible, even if she did not, after cross-examination, she found the complainant to be unreliable. The Judge went as far as commenting that Ms. Bristow was polite, not abusive and very effectively had the complainant agreeing with suggestions that were in complete contradiction to her direct evidence. Despite the finding of not guilty, the judge indicated that she was considering having Mr. N enter into a peace bond to ensure the complainant was protected. However, after Ms. Bristow made submissions about Mr. N’s progress and lack of involvement in the criminal justice system in many years, she declined to have him enter a peace bond. If you have a criminal matter and would like to contact Ms. Bristow for a free consultation, please contact her by phone at 416-598-5741 or email at [email protected] Note: Past successes do not guarantee future successes R. v. VI Mr. VI was alleged to have punched and pistol whipped the complainant in his hotel room, completely unprovoked. A preliminary inquiry was held to test whether there was enough evidence to bring Mr. VI to trial. The complainant and his friend both testified that they were at a birthday party on the second floor of a hotel. Around 4am, the complainant was having a cigarette on the balcony of his room when he somehow dropped his keys onto the balcony below him. He went down to that room and knocked on the door when the accused and his friend allegedly opened the door and began assaulting him. This case was particularly difficult because there were problems with the complainant’s police statement in that there was video but no audio, so Ms. Bristow only had the police notes of the complainant’s statement to rely on. Further, the complainant’s friend refused to provide a statement to the police at the scene. As a result, Ms. Bristow was at a significant disadvantage when preparing for the preliminary inquiry. The complainant, his friend and several officers testified at the preliminary inquiry. Through cross-examination, significant weaknesses in the Crown’s case became apparent during the contradictory evidence of the complainant and his friend, as well as internal inconsistencies within the complainant’s own evidence. After the evidence was heard, the Crown attorney agreed with Ms. Bristow and decided to withdraw the charges against Mr. VI. If you have a criminal matter and would like to contact Ms. Bristow for a free consultation, please contact her by phone at 416-598-5741 or email at [email protected] Note: Past successes do not guarantee future successes R. v. S.
Mr. S. had a lengthy record for crimes of dishonesty including Frauds and Thefts. As a result of his criminal record for breaches of court orders, and the fact that he did not have anyone to supervise him if he was released from custody, Mr. S remained in custody pending the resolution or trial of his charges. Diversion is an alternative to prosecution that is typically offered to accused’s persons who do not have a criminal record. The programs often involve some sort of community service, making a charitable donation or counselling. Due to the requirements of the program, it is very rare that someone who is in custody is able to complete a diversion program. Despite this, Ms. Bristow was able to negotiate an informal diversion program for Mr. S whereby he complete some upfront work in custody to have his charges withdrawn. This was exceptional not only because Mr. S was in custody, but because he already had amassed quite a few convictions on his record. After Ms. Bristow’s negotiations and his completion of the diversion program, Mr. S did not add another conviction to that list. If you have a criminal matter and would like to contact Ms. Bristow for a free consultation, please contact her by phone at 416-598-5741 or email at [email protected] Note: Past successes do not guarantee future successes R. v. BC
Mr. BC was alleged to have uttered a threat to kill the complainant while pointing a firearm at him. The next day, the police executed a search warrant on Mr. BC’s vehicle and found a pistol, 222 grams of Cocaine, 9 grams of MDMA, 69 grams of marijuana and over $5000 in Canadian currency. Although Mr. BC had a prior criminal record, Ms. Bristow was able to obtain a release for Mr. BC on the Friday before a long weekend so that he did not have to spend any more time in custody. If you have a criminal matter and would like to contact Ms. Bristow for a free consultation, please contact her by phone at 416-598-5741 or email at [email protected] Note: Past successes do not guarantee future successes R. v. M.
Mr. M (18) and the complainant (13) were two teenagers who were exploring their sexual identity. They met on a public gay chatroom application that required users to confirm that they were 17 years old or older primarily sexual in nature. Ms. Bristow argued that the complainant lied about his age when Mr. M asked his age/sex/location; rather than admitting he was 13, the complainant said he was 17/male/Canada. The conversation moved to a private text application called KIK, where they exchanged photographs of their faces, private parts and discussed sexual explicit acts, including a planned meet up to engage in sexual activity. They in fact met in person and engaged in sexual activity. The sole issue at trial was whether Mr. M had an honest but mistaken belief in the complainant’s age and whether he took all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant’s age. In other words, if Mr. M believed that the complainant was the age of consent, the defence of consent was available to Mr. M. Although there was some disagreement at first, through cross-examination, it became clear to the Crown and His Honour that the complainant was a willing participant and consented to all of the sexually explicit conversation and activity. Through cross-examination of the Crown witnesses, Mr. Bristow as able to point holes in the Crown’s theory that Mr. M knew the complainant was 13 years old. She spent hours with Mr. M preparing him to testify with confidence both in direct examination in chief and cross-examination. Ms. Bristow’s preparations proved to be fruitful as it took the jury less than an hour to come back with an acquittal on all three charges (Sexual Assault, Sexual Interference and Invitation to Sexual Touching). If you have a criminal matter and would like to contact Ms. Bristow for a free consultation, please contact her by phone at 416-598-5741 or email at [email protected] Note: Past successes do not guarantee future successes R. v. D.
After the execution of a search warrant on Ms. D’s apartment, the police located 227.65 grams of powder cocaine in a single Ziploc bag. Ms. D was facing significant jail time (i.e. over 2 years). The defence was that Ms. D had no idea that the cocaine was in her home, but moreover that there were significant issues with the search warrant. Entering someone’s home is a momentous intrusion into a person’s privacy. The search warrant contained information from two (2) confidential informants. When relying on this type of information, it is required that it be compelling, credible and corroborated. Further, the person writing the information to obtain a search warrant has a duty to be full, fair and frank and has to swear that the contents are true. Ms. Bristow filed numerous applications with the court in preparation for Ms. D’s trial. One of the applications was an alternative suspect application, as there were other people who had access to her apartment. Another application was pursuant to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that the Ms. D’s right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure was violated. Leading up to the trial, Ms. Bristow also prepared Ms. D to testify in the event the Charter application was unsuccessful. However, it never got to the point where Ms. D testified because the Crown was convinced by the applications that Ms. Bristow filed and decided to stay the charges. Ms. D, who had no criminal record, was a single mother and had a good career as a personal support worker was thankful that this nightmare was finally over and she could move on with her life. If you have a criminal matter and would like to contact Ms. Bristow for a free consultation, please contact her by phone at 416-598-5741 or email at [email protected] Note: Past successes do not guarantee future successes R. v. G.
Mr. G was charged with historical Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference charges over a two year period relating to his ex-girlfriend’s daughter. The assaults alleged stopped because his ex-girlfriend had allegedly caught Mr. G in her daughter’s bed late at night and kicked him out of the house. The first trial resulted in a hung jury, and the Crown decided to re-prosecute the case. As a result, the Crown knew Ms. Bristow’s defence as well as the evidence of Mr. G. The Crown’s case appeared strong with a fairly credible young woman as the complainant. Her evidence was partially corroborated by her mother, as well as her cousin, who she had disclosed the assaults to prior to the police being involved. This was no feat for Ms. Bristow, however, who worked diligently to poke holes in the Crown’s case, even using the complainant’s mother’s evidence to corroborate the defence theory. There was a clear motive to lie on the part of the complainant and Ms. Bristow highlighted that for the jury, which helped to secure the full acquittal for Mr. G. If you have a criminal matter and would like to contact Ms. Bristow for a free consultation, please contact her by phone at 416-598-5741 or email at [email protected] Note: Past successes do not guarantee future successes |
AuthorHere, I post various success stories I have obtained for my clients in court. Archives
October 2019
Categories |
RSS Feed
