R v Hull

R. v. Hull

2006 CanLII 26572 (ON C.A.)
Court of Appeal for Ontario — Simmons, Armstrong and Rouleau JJ.A. | August 4, 2006

Background

David Edward Hull was charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon. At trial before Justice Julia A. Morneau of the Ontario Court of Justice, Hull testified in his own defence. The case came down to competing testimony between Hull and the complainant about what happened during the alleged assault. After hearing all the evidence, the trial judge acquitted Hull on March 8, 2005.

However, the Crown wasn't satisfied with how the judge reached her decision. They appealed the acquittals, arguing the trial judge made serious errors in how she evaluated the evidence. Hull didn't bother showing up for the appeal hearing, even though he was properly served with notice.

Issues

1. Did the trial judge err by refusing to compare the testimony of Hull and the complainant?
2. Did the trial judge err in her assessment of Hull's demeanour while testifying?

The Evidence Assessment Error

The trial judge made a fundamental mistake about her job. She wrote: "To reject Mr. Hull's evidence and or to say that it does not raise a reasonable doubt requires me to cogently explain why I have done this... It would amount to a comparison of 'he says, she says'. That is not an appropriate way to assess the evidence in a criminal trial."

The Court of Appeal said this was completely wrong. While judges can't treat trials like simple credibility contests (you can't just pick who you like better), they absolutely must compare witness testimony and assess the accused's evidence against all the other evidence. That's literally the judge's job. The R. v. W.(D.) case doesn't prohibit comparing evidence — it just says you can't convict someone simply because you prefer the Crown's witnesses.

The Demeanour Evidence Error

The trial judge noted that Hull became agitated during cross-examination, took long pauses (over 30 seconds), and challenged the Crown about why she was asking certain questions. But then she said: "It is dangerous to draw conclusions or inferences from demeanour."

Again, the Court of Appeal said this was wrong. Judges aren't required to ignore how witnesses behave on the stand. As the court explained in R. v. Boyce, trial judges can absolutely use demeanour evidence "in conjunction with their assessment of all the evidence and in the full context of the trial." The trial judge made a blanket statement that overstated the cautions about demeanour evidence.

Key Takeaway

Trial judges must actually do their job — they can't refuse to compare evidence or ignore obvious demeanour issues.

This case shows that even when you win at trial, the Crown can appeal if the judge made legal errors in reaching the decision. Here, Hull's acquittals were thrown out and he'll face a completely new trial because the judge misunderstood basic principles about evaluating evidence.