Acquitted of Assault, Choking and Uttering Threats: Why a Complainant's Inconsistencies Matter at Trial

In a recent trial, AJ Law Professional Corporation successfully defended a client charged with assault, assault by choking (commonly called strangulation) and uttering threats to cause bodily harm. After a full trial, the court found the complainant's evidence unreliable and acquitted our client on every count.

The Charges

Domestic and intimate-partner cases often reach the courtroom with no independent witnesses and no physical evidence. The Crown's case rests on the complainant's account. In this matter, the allegations were serious: a physical assault, an allegation of choking — which, since 2019, is a distinct and more serious form of assault under section 267(1)(c) of the Criminal Code — and a threat to cause bodily harm under section 264.1.

Charges of this kind are treated with great seriousness by police and Crown prosecutors. They are rarely withdrawn. In most cases the only path to a just result is a trial.

What the Defence Turned On

Every complainant in a criminal case has told their story more than once — to the 911 operator, to the responding officers, in a recorded statement at the station, and eventually under oath in court. Each telling is a record. When the tellings do not match, the differences matter.

In this case, the defence prepared by comparing the complainant's statement to the police, line by line, against the evidence given at trial. In cross-examination we were able to draw out every point on which the accounts diverged — not only the significant contradictions, but the small details as well: the sequence of events, where people were standing, what was said and when, and what the complainant did afterwards.

Taken one at a time, minor inconsistencies can seem unimportant. Taken together, they go to the heart of the question a trial judge must answer: can this witness's evidence be relied upon to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

The Result

The court found that the complainant was not a reliable witness. Because the Crown's case depended on that evidence, it could not meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Our client was found not guilty of all charges.

Why This Matters If You Have Been Charged

An accused person does not have to prove that the complainant is lying. The law is clear that even where a judge does not entirely accept the accused's version of events, an acquittal must follow if the evidence as a whole leaves a reasonable doubt. Reliability — whether a witness's memory and account can be trusted to be accurate — is a separate question from honesty, and it is often the more important one.

That is why the preparation done before trial is decisive. Obtaining full disclosure, reviewing every prior statement, and building the cross-examination around the record rather than around argument is the difference between a conviction and an acquittal in cases that come down to one person's word.

Charged With Assault or a Domestic Offence?

If you are facing charges of assault, choking or uttering threats, do not assume that a complainant's account will be accepted at face value. AJ Law Professional Corporation reviews the entire disclosure record to identify where the Crown's case is vulnerable. Contact us for a confidential consultation.

Every case turns on its own facts. Past results are not a guarantee of future outcomes.