R v Kinnear

In R v Kinnear, the appellant appealed against a conviction for an offence. The appeal concerned the reliability of the complainant's evidence, particularly in light of her mental illnesses and prior inconsistent statements. The appeal was heard by Gray, Kelly, and Stanley JJ in the appellate court.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in concluding that the proven inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence did not affect her reliability, thereby rendering the verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory. The court was required to determine if the cumulative effect of the complainant's mental health, significant prior inconsistent statements, and the trial judge's assessment of this evidence justified setting aside the conviction.

The appellate court found that the trial judge's conclusion regarding the complainant's reliability could not be sustained. While acknowledging there was no suggestion the complainant was untruthful, the court highlighted that her capacity to be a reliable historian was demonstrably affected by her mental illnesses and significant prior inconsistent statements. The court also noted that the prosecution's tendering of hospital records and agreed facts concerning the complainant's mental state was not sufficiently explained by a witness, thus failing to adequately assist the trier of fact in assessing how her mental state impacted her perception and recollection. The court concluded that the trial judge placed inappropriate weight on certain evidence and did not adequately reconcile the numerous inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, some of which went to the heart of the allegations. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the District Court for retrial.