VPJ was an elderly gentleman and proprietor of an establishment that was somewhat notorious for persons of ill-repute. VPJ became involved in a heated dispute with one of his female residential tenants over a substantial unpaid hotel bill. Well, the female tenant absconded without paying the bill and accused VPJ of touching her 10 year old daughter (over her clothing) during the course of their lengthy stay at his establishment. VPJ, a grandfather with no prior criminal convictions, was arrested and charged with sexual assault. Patrick Fagan entered pleas of not guilty to all charges and scheduled the matter for trial.
During the course of preparation for trial Patrick Fagan discovered that the alleged victim had provided very different statements to the police, her mother (who had to be interviewed while serving time in jail) and a social worker. The assigned Crown prosecutor, fixed with knowledge of the statements provided by the victim’s mother and social worker, refused to subpoena or otherwise compel their attendance to testify at trial.
Bottom Line: A trial was conducted during which Patrick Fagan cross-examined the young complainant at some length. In keeping with Patrick Fagan’s style of practice, he was exceedingly careful not to upset or otherwise traumatize the child.
Bottom Line: The credibility of the child witness was gently but effectively undermined such as to give rise to a glaring reasonable doubt. Verdicts of not guilty were entered on all counts.