False sexual assault claim gets a discharge and an accused person is not required to explain why a complainant would lie

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:

Annaca Kobayashi, a 19-year-old woman from Langford, falsely reported to the police that a young man she knows had threatened her with a knife and sexually assaulted her. 

A police investigation, including a review of a video recording where she claimed to have been threatened with the knife, revealed her story to be false. 

Only after a third police interview did Ms. Kobayashi, who had a boyfriend at the time, admit that she made the story up. 

The young man who was falsely accused spoke to the police and advised that Ms. Kobayashi and he had consensual sex. 

Ms. Kobayashi was charged with public mischief for making the false report to the police. She eventually entered a guilty plea and received a conditional discharge with 24 months of probation and 50 hours of community work service. 

A conditional discharge means that, if a period of probation is successfully completed, the person will be deemed not to have been convicted of a criminal offence and, after a period of time, the record of the conviction will automatically be removed from the CPIC computer system. 

The test for a conditional discharge is whether avoiding a criminal conviction would be both in the best interests of the offender and not contrary to the public interest. 

A conviction for threatening someone with a knife and sexually assaulting them would result in many years in jail. 

Also on the show, the BC Court of Appeal overturned a conviction for sexual interference and sexual assault as a result of the trial judge reversing the burden of proof. 

The case involved a complainant testifying that she was sexually assaulted, and the accused testifying that he did not do it. 

The judge relied on the fact that the accused could not explain why the complainant  would lie in order to convict him. 

The accused person, in a criminal case, is not required to explain why a complainant  would lie. To require this is to reverse the burden of proof. 

As a result, a new trial has been ordered. 

Finally, the BC Court of Appeal has allowed an 84-year-old man to remain in a trailer park he had been living at for more than a decade.

The trailer park was owned by the man’s brother. The brother had an agreement with the man that he could live in the trailer park for the rest of his life in exchange for providing work and services. 

When the brother died, his executors attempted to evict the man, unless is began paying $350 per month is pad rent. 

The Court of Appeal referenced the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act which provides for tenancy relationships to be made orally and defines rent broadly to include not just money but “value or a right given or agreed to be given” in return for the right of possession. 

As a result, the Court of Appeal referred the case to the director of the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act to determine if a tenancy exists.

Follow this link for a transcript of the episode and links to the cases discussed.