Today's decision in R. v. D.M., 2009 ONCA 553 makes clear, as has been set out in other recent decisions, that the analysis in W(D), dealing with conflicting evidence in criminal cases, is not to be applied in a mechanistic manner.
While it is useful for a trial judge to reference W(D), and while a trial judge is obliged to apply W(D), there is no obligation to restate the case as if the Court was reciting a headnote.
The key is to ensure that at all times the accused is not found guilty unless proven so beyond reasonable doubt on all the evidence heard.
The Court holds:
[3] ... . The W.D. analysis is a functional, not a formulaic, analysis: see R. v. Y(C.L.), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 5 at paras. 6-9. In our view, the trial judge's reasons, read as a whole, establish that he understood the W.D. analysis and dealt appropriately with the testimony of the various witnesses, including the appellant.
No comments:
Post a Comment