Nova Scotia man convicted of molesting girl who once called him ‘Dad’ wins freedom and new trial

Article content

Her mother married D.P. in 2015, said the decision. “The complainant described her initial relationship with D.P. as ‘good.’ She thought he was a ‘nice guy’ and began to call him ‘Dad.’ Within a year, D.P. began to do ‘sexual things’ to her,” the decision said.

Article content

Those included “oral sex, touching and kissing,” said the decision.

Article content

“She described two initial incidents, one of which involved watching pornography on a living room television. The two specific events were followed by a pattern of regular instances occurring four times a week until she was eight or nine,” the decision said.

Article content

The last one happened when she was 12, she testified.

Article content

“She said D.P.’s conduct between 2010 and 2014 made her angry and withdrawn. She disclosed these allegations to her mother in June of 2021.”

Article content

Article content

The alleged victim’s mother “kicked him out of the house in January of 2017,” said the decision.

Article content

D.P. testified “he used cocaine from 2014 to 2015 with relapses in 2016,” said the decision. “He denied ever using cocaine in the presence of the complainant.”

Article content

He also admitted to watching porn, said the decision, “but denied ever doing so in the complainant’s presence saying he only watched on his phone while in his bedroom. He said there was no way to watch pornography on the television in their living room.”

Article content

Article content

Murray’s reasons for convicting D.P. “were found to be factually and legally deficient,” said the appeal court decision.

Article content

They didn’t “adequately explain the basis for the credibility assessment or address the evidentiary issues that arose during the trial. The judge’s extensive review of the evidence was confusing, contained errors, and did not provide a clear foundation for the decision.”

Article content

Those same reasons “failed to offer an intelligible rejection of the defence evidence or explain the absence of reasonable doubt, thus impairing meaningful appellate review. Given these deficiencies, a new trial was warranted.”

Article content

Murray gave an oral decision three months after D.P.’s trial concluded.

Article content

“His reasons purported to summarize the evidence and review the positions of the parties before conducting his credibility assessment and convicting D.P. There is no dispute that some of his reasons do not accord with the record,” said the appeal decision.

Article content

“On the central issue of credibility and having said he ‘considered all of the evidence,’ the judge summarily rejected D.P.’s evidence and found it did not raise any reasonable doubt. He went on to find the evidence of the complainant ‘forthcoming,’ ‘detailed’ and ‘what the court considers to be credible evidence.’ The judge concluded by finding the Crown met its burden ‘on the whole of the evidence.’”

Article content

Article content