R. V. Parrott Summary

Words: 1034
Pages: 5

In the case of R. v. Parrott we encounter a situation of where the victim is unable to testify for themselves and an out of court statement was accepted as substitute of the victim testimony. Along with suggestions that lead to a reasonable assumption of the crime did occur the evidences provided are not substantial which include, expert opinions and speculations. Upon further investigation the dilemma of sentencing someone solely on an hearsay evidence becomes more prominent. On July 15, 1994, around seven PM, the accused was seen at Waterford psychiatric hospital talking to the female resident who later brought her into his vehicle. This was testified by James Barry, a psychiatric nursing assistance about two hundred feets away …show more content…
Within the following test I will be disclosing the crown’s unjust method to convict the respondent of second degree sexual assault. Uncertain the extreme circumstances that hearsay evidence are accepted, the prerequisites include confirmations that she will suffer trauma attempting to give evidence and no additional information will be gained by doing so. Evidence should not be preempted by hearsay unless the trial judge has first had an opportunity to hear the potential witness and form his or her own opinion as to testimonial competence. Additionally, It’s awfully suspicious that the crown made no effort in forming a complete testimony but heavily advocated that the complainant is unsuited to give a testimony. Furthermore, with numerous nurses’ confirmation that the complainant is able to comprehend rudimentary questions it has become apparent that to not testify in court was a tactical decision that leveraged on concerns for the well being of the complainant. As anticipated, this placed the defences in a position where cross examination of complainant was not an