The case against a former Huntsville High School teacher crumbled when the judge in the case found “collusion or collaboration” between two Crown witnesses.
Last week, Jordan Riley was acquitted on charges of sexual exploitation and sexual assault stemming from alleged incidents that occurred with a minor in 2003.
In delivering his verdict at the Bracebridge courthouse on June 8, Justice John McCarthy said the Crown’s case rested almost exclusively on the credibility and reliability of the complainant and her mother, both of whom had testified during the week-long trial which took place in Bracebridge in April of this year.
A publication ban restricts the publishing of any information that could identify the complainant.
According to McCarthy, a key problem with the prosecution was that the complainant’s mother changed her statement to the police.
“I am troubled by the circumstances in which (the mother) changed her statement…,” he said. “It persuades me that her evidence was certainly influenced and possibly even manipulated. This greatly undermines the confidence of this court, not just in the reliability of the evidence of both the complainant and (the mother, a critical corroborating witness to the offence), but in the entire way the evidence against the accused was collected and prepared for trial.”
The mother had originally given a different account of where the incidents took place and implied that a single incident took place when the complaint said there had, in fact, been two incidents. The mother later submitted a second statement, which was more in line with the complaint’s recollection of the events.
“I find it difficult to accept that the precise detail of the alleged crime scene would have been something that the complainant left out or that (the mother) misunderstood in 2015 (when she first heard about the allegations from her daughter),” said McCarthy. “In my view, this collusion or collaboration between these witnesses, whether deliberate, careless, or otherwise, serves to taint and infect the evidence of both witnesses. Taken together with the other problems with their respective testimony, I am drawn to the inexorable conclusion that their collective evidence is not credible and cannot be relied upon.”
The Justice also said the complainant’s narrative was problematic. He acknowledged that the events in question took place 20 years ago; the content was sensitive and difficult; that she was under some stress when testifying and that a person having suffered physical abuse may have adopted coping strategies for shutting out unpleasant memories from the past but he said there were still too many problems to ignore.
“She chose to explain inconsistencies, gaps, and contradictions in her testimony by referencing the frailties of her memory, or as she termed it, her ‘complicated” memory,’ he said. “This would not be so difficult to accept if these deficiencies did not relate almost exclusively to the pieces of evidence which undermined the believability of her version of events.”
McCarthy said the complainant’s evidence was often punctuated by long pauses, “as if she was searching for answers which would preserve the plausibility of her narrative when she recognized that what she had stated earlier was untenable or that a truthful answer to the question posed might serve to undermine that narrative.”
He said he also found the complaint to be “evasive” and her testimony characterized by “multiple internal and external contradictions and contained inconsistencies regarding material aspects of the accusations.”
Related: Former HHS teacher Jordan Riley acquitted of all charges
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox so you don’t miss anything!
Click here to support local news
I’m feeling sad and sorry for the person who instigated this case. So much negativity! I hope they are okay. And yes. It’s very important to keep identity a secret. Something happened at the school. We will never know what exactly.
What a miscarriage of justice! If the accused can be named and harmed as Mr. Riley has been, how is it fair for the accuser(s) to be anonymous? Even if the case is now some twenty years old, the plaintiff is now and has been an adult for many years. I do not understand how the Crown could allow this to go to trial with such obviously unsupported evidence – surely our justice system is better than this. I truly hope and support that Mr. Riley is able to win appropriate damages from the plaintiff and family of the plaintiff and from the Ontario Justice System. This is truly a travesty of justice.
I’ve known Mr Riley since most of our lives . I never had any situations that would lead me to think he was capable of the things he was charged with yet I must admit I thought that our police / justice system would have to have a very solid case before they would charge / ruin a man’s reputation . Apparently this was not the case in this situation ,This is not fixable . I hope Mr Riley seeks some sort of financial restitution to at least make the people responsible for this miscarriage and others in the future think twice before they follow the same path. I hope Mr Riley will accept my apology for doubting him and hope to shake his hand in the near future .
Bill Sibeon Jr.
Lost His livelihood due to unproven charges . Hardly seems fair !
“A publication ban restricts the publishing of any information that could identify the complainant.”
No penalty for collusion. Not even your name made public with false accusations.
Anyone can severely damage anyone’s reputation at any time for no reason at all.
In some areas the name of the accused cannot be published unless found guilty.
Not here.
Guilty until proven innocent.
Especially on charges like that.