R. v. Akohene-Mensah

Summary

The Court of Appeal dismissed a conviction appeal from a bar assault. The trial judge treated the complainant's identification as recognition evidence, given about ten years of casual acquaintance, and also considered its frailties. The Court held that recognition evidence still requires scrutiny of reliability and credibility, and that the trial judge's holistic assessment was adequate. The verdicts were not unreasonable.

Outcome

Appeal from convictions dismissed (para. 13). Convictions were for aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, possession of a weapon dangerous to the public, and breach of probation (para. 1). Panel: Lauwers, Gomery, Pomerance JJ.A.

Why this case matters

Recognition evidence from a prior acquaintance still requires the trial judge to consider reliability as well as credibility, and a holistic assessment can be adequate.

Paragraph references

Paras. 4-5: recognition evidence has the same frailties as eyewitness identification (R. v. Chafe, 2019 ONCA 113, para. 30). Paras. 6-7: frailties considered, and familiarity may enhance reliability (R. v. Olliffe, 2015 ONCA 242, paras. 38-39). Paras. 8-9: both credibility and reliability required. Para. 10: the trial judge need not recite every argument, and the presumption of consideration applies. Paras. 11-12: R. v. Griffin, 2024 ONCA 324, paras. 11-13; verdict not unreasonable. Para. 13: disposition.