The sexual-assault convictions of a former fire chief in northern B.C. have been overturned after the B.C. Court of Appeal found the trial judge's conduct to be unfair.
In February 2015, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Glen Parrett, who is now retired, found the former fire chief of the northern B.C. community of Fort St. James guilty of three counts of sexual assault.
Court heard that the chief, who is only identified by the initials R.H.B. in the Appeal Court ruling released Tuesday, was drinking heavily and had repeatedly groped and rubbed himself against two of the women and tried to force himself on a third victim.
The victims were female volunteer firefighters. The offences took place over a 6-1/2-year period ending in July 2013. R.H.B. was sentenced to nine months in jail and two years of probation.
The issues on appeal focused on the judge's conduct in relation to a Crown witness named Brian Schnepf, the captain of the fire department.
During Schnepf's testimony, Parrett read out the provisions of the Criminal Code that relate to perjury.
"I want to read something out to you, sir, just in case you don't grasp the seriousness of where we are," said the judge before reading out the perjury section of the code.
The judge extensively cross-examined the witness, asking some 50 questions, then asked the Crown to advise the major crime section of the RCMP that an investigation should be launched into Schnepf's evidence and offered his assistance.
On appeal, the defence argued that the judge's conduct in relation to the witness, whose evidence was favourable to the accused, was unfair.
In his reasons for judgment, B.C. Court of Appeal Justice John Savage said the question that arises in the case is whether the judge's conduct gave rise to an appearance of unfairness serious enough to shake public confidence in the administration of justice.
The Crown argued that the judge's comments only showed skepticism, not unfairness, but Savage disagreed with that position.
"In my opinion, the judge's comments here would lead a reasonable observer to the ineluctable conclusion that the evidence of this witness, called by the Crown but unfavourable to the defence, was not believed, before the judge heard all of the evidence in the case," said Savage. "The judge's remarks gave rise not merely to an appearance of skepticism, but to an apprehension that he had foreclosed his mind on evidence that should have been weighed, once all the evidence had been received.
"A reasonable and informed observer would perceive that the trial (judge) had prejudged material issues prior to hearing all the evidence."
Savage said that the judge's extensive questioning of Parrett was problematic and went beyond what was proper, with the kinds of questions asked seemingly crafted to cast doubt on the credibility of the witness.
"This questioning did not go to the clarification of the evidence, the resolution of misunderstandings, or the correction of inappropriate or unfair questions posed by counsel."
Savage's ruling was agreed to by Justice Anne MacKenzie and Justice David Harris.
It's the second time in a month that the conduct of Parrett, who sat on the bench from 1990 to 2015, has been scrutinized by the Appeal Court.
Reached Tuesday, one of the women who brought the complaints against R.H.B. said she is confident he will be found guilty once again. She said the decision for a new trial is based solely on the issues with Parrett and "has nothing to do with the evidence."
R.H.B. is scheduled to appear in court next month to elect the form of re-trial.
In September, the Appeal Court dismissed the appeal of Prince George-area serial killer Cody Legebokoff, who had been convicted following a jury trial presided over by Parrett.
- with files from Mark Nielsen
