CROSS-EXAMINATION LEADS TO JUDGE FINDING CASE NOT PROVEN CASE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT

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.