Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Criminal law - Trial - Jury - Three co-accused jointly charged with a single count of sexual assault - Whether the jury’s verdict convicting the Appellant was unreasonable pursuant to section 686(1)(a) of the Criminal Code because of its inconsistency with the jury’s verdicts acquitting his two co-accused.

The Statement of Facts is derived from the reasons of the Court of Appeal. On May 27, 2000, the complainant visited her aunt. She went out for a walk sometime before 7 pm. On her way, she met the Appellant, Roopnarine Pittiman, his brother Ryan, their friend Goffe and Maheshwar Inderjeet outside the Pittiman residence. The men invited her into the basement of the Pittiman house. She went willingly. The complainant’s version of events was that while she was sitting on the sofa, Goffe, Roopnarine and Ryan began to touch her everywhere on top of her clothes. The complainant consistently said no and that she had to leave. Roopnarine and Ryan then led her into the bedroom, took her clothes off and all three had forced sexual intercourse. The extent of Inderjeet’s participation is not clear.

Inderjeet testified that he did not go into the bedroom with the complainant and the others. Inderjeet said he walked her to her aunt’s home at 10 pm. The complainant agreed with the time, but said that she walked home alone.

The complainant told her aunt that four men had raped her. The family called the police. The complainant was taken to the hospital. Roopnarine’s saliva was found mixed with her saliva on the inside of her bra. Inderjeet, the main witness supporting the complainant’s allegation, lied in the first three statements he gave to the police, stating that he was not at the scene. Later, Inderjeet gave a statement admitting his presence and supporting the complainant’s version of events. After Inderjeet admitted his presence, the Appellant accused Inderjeet of “ratting him out”.

At trial, the jury convicted the Appellant and acquitted his brother Ryan and Goffe. On appeal, the majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal and sentence appeal. Borins J.A., dissenting, held that the Appellant met the stringent test for inconsistent verdicts leading to the result that the jury’s verdict convicting him of sexual assault was unreasonable, and would have allowed his appeal and entered an acquittal.