Flash: April 13, 2004:
The Crown declined to retry Stacey Dodd. He now walks the planet as the innocent man he was before lies were told about him. This family's life has been interefered with for almost a year since the appeal court ordered a new trial. Cheree Miller has been placed in an untenable position of having to choose to spend time with either her partner or her children. Every minute this continues puts justice in disrepute!
I read the story about the Bice Family, and it was sad.
My family and I are going through the same thing and we are looking for help. We need it badly.
My husband was charged with the same charges as Mr. Bice was and he can not see his kids at all.
His ex wife had asked her daughter to lie and told her she would get money if she would do this.
This situation has been 7 yrs in the making. We have been to gether for 1 yr and 6 months. I have 3 kids from another relationship and CAS has now come to me 1 yr ago and said that he can never see my children at all.
We are still fighting hard but need help. He served 1 yrs in the pen in Joiceville, but was let out on appeal bail 3 yrs ago and and we are still waiting to see if we can have another trial.
The girl who these charges are about has now been given by her mother to CAS in Owen Sound and now she has recanted. She went to the police and said it was all a lie. But my husband is still not allowed to see my kids nor his 2 boys at all.
My name is Cheree Miller and his name is Stacey Dodd.
Please help me set him free to live some what of a normal life................
Please help us!............Cheree
R. v. Dodd, May 26, 2004, Ontario Court of Appeal
This decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal adds another precedent to the growing list of cases considering the sufficiency of Reasons for Judgment. Of import in this particular case was that the trial judge's reasons for convicting the appellant could not be described as brief, and further that she had properly charged herself in accordance with R. v. W.(D.). However, the flaw inherent in these reasons was the conclusory fashion in which the appellant's own evidence was dealt with. This error in law, in turn, led to the order of a new trial.
In rejecting the appellant's testimony and finding it did not raise a reasonable doubt, the learned trial judge had simply stated:
I do not believe Mr. Dodd when he denies the sexual activity with M.D....I have also considered whether Mr. Dodd's evidence has left me in a reasonable doubt. It has not.
The Court of Appeal overturned the conviction on the basis that the Reasons failed to provide any meaningful analysis as to how the trial judge reached this conclusion.
It is moot to state that the evidence given by a defendant, who waives the right to silence and chooses to testify in her or his own defence, is of key significance to the trial and thus deserves careful consideration from a trier of fact.
In particular, Justice Laskin for the unanimous Court noted, the following factors lent credence to the appellant's submission that the reasons were insufficient within the meaning of R. v. Sheppard:
Given these features in particular, a new trial was ordered.