Article content continued

At first blush, it seems to be a very shaky case

The appeal court was critical not just of the trial judge, but also of Superior Court Judge Bruce Durno, who heard the first, or summary conviction, appeal of the case, and dismissed it — failing, the high court said, to recognize that the trial judge had improperly cut off proper cross-examination of the complainant and that his decision disclosed a reasonable apprehension of bias that rendered P.G.’s trial unfair.

P.G. was convicted by Brown on April 2, 2014 of three counts of sexual assault — all involving alleged touching and fondling — on the girl, who was 15 at the time.

The appeal court was particularly harsh on Brown not only for his treatment of P.G., but also for how he characterized the conduct of the witness who testified in P.G.’s support (the girl’s mother) and even his lawyer, David Bayliss.

The case was complicated — as even Brown said once, “At first blush, it seems to be a very shaky case” — and the evidence of the girl problematic.

After all, she had sworn an affidavit recanting her allegations 17 months after she made them, then recanted that recantation at trial.

She also has serious and troubling personal issues, a history of suicide attempts and cutting herself, and was distressed by her parents’ acrimonious separation.

Bayliss was asking her what she understood her psychiatric diagnoses to be – not what they actually are, but how she perceived them – when Brown ruled the question inadmissible.

The point of the question, the high court said, “related to certain evidence that the defence had obtained from the complainant’s social media account.