**This article contains graphic content that may not be suitable or comfortable for some readers.**
The fate of a man accused of sex crimes against a young boy will be decided Monday, after lawyers gave their final submissions Friday morning.
The man, who can only be identified as T.B. due to a publication ban, is accused of months of inappropriate touching and sexual assaults on a young boy in the South Okanagan in 2011 and 2012. What has gone undisputed is the two slept in the same bed at T.B.鈥檚 place, and that the two were close friends for some time, despite a 10-year gap in their age.
The boy claimed T.B. put his hand down the boy鈥檚 pants while the two shared a bed, that T.B. ejaculated on the boy and that T.B. penetrated the boy anally.
Related: Accused denies boy鈥檚 sex assault claims
In closing remarks, defence lawyer Don Skogstad pointed to inconsistencies in the boy鈥檚 testimony, while Crown lawyer John Swanson said T.B.鈥檚 story 鈥渄oesn鈥檛 make sense.鈥�
While the two had rather disparate takes on the trial and the pending verdict, they both relied on a single piece of case law, known as R. v. W.(D.), a Supreme Court of Canada decision considered the benchmark for sexual assault cases relying largely on contradictory testimonies.
According to that decision, a defendant can be found to be an unreliable witness, but the defence can still demonstrate reasonable doubt in their guilt.
Related: Boy details graphic allegations of sex assaults
In this case, the trial heard testimony from both the boy and from T.B., as well as from the boy鈥檚 parents. But both lawyers focused on the testimony from the boy and from T.B.
With respect to W.(D.), Skogstad noted the Crown had to effectively show reason not to believe the the defendant鈥檚 testimony.
鈥淚鈥檓 having trouble thinking of one myself,鈥� he said. 鈥淚鈥檓 going to suggest that what (Swanson) might say is 鈥榣ook at this, it鈥檚 the injunction of the events, the association. Young guy, old guy, together, sleeping in the same bed.鈥� So from that we鈥檙e supposed to make out a criminal offence,鈥� Skogstad said, adding he didn鈥檛 buy it.
Related: Publication ban remains on alleged sex offender鈥檚 name
Swanson did follow that line in his closing submissions, attempting to drive home that it was uncharacteristic of T.B. to become friends with a boy half his age.
鈥淗e admitted that prior to his relationship with (the boy) he had no friends who were children. No friends who were half his age. No friends who were nine or 10 years old,鈥� Swanson said.
鈥淗e would like you to believe that on this particular occasion he was actually trying to develop a friendship with a nine or 10 year old boy. T.B. doesn鈥檛 say 鈥榳ell, wait a minute, I was trying to be a big brother.鈥� T.B. doesn鈥檛 say 鈥業 was trying to be a mentor.鈥� T.B. doesn鈥檛 say 鈥業 was trying to teach him how to be a man.鈥欌��
Swanson also pointed to T.B.鈥檚 testimony that when the boy slept over, he only began sleeping on the bed with the boy after it had become 鈥渘ormalized鈥� through sharing a mattress at the boy鈥檚 father鈥檚 place and at the boy鈥檚 grandparents鈥� place.
鈥淗e knew it was wrong, so he needed to set up an excuse for why he would move from the couch into the bed,鈥� Swanson said. 鈥淚t didn鈥檛 become 鈥榥ormalized.鈥� It was wrong from the very beginning and it was wrong up until the end.鈥�
Skogstad characterized the boy as shifting blame from himself in any way he could when he is found to be in the wrong.
鈥淗e demonstrated that to you. So, what was the clearest case of that? It has to do with the iPod,鈥� Skogstad said, referring to one of numerous gifts T.B. gave to the boy.
The boy had claimed the iPod had gone missing or been stolen, when a string of pornographic downloads were charged to T.B.鈥檚 credit card, which was linked to his Apple account.
But Skogstad said the boy鈥檚 own mother testified to finding the iPod later on, and said it was evidence that the boy diverted blame for his own misdeeds.
Swanson painted the present as 鈥済rooming鈥� behaviour by T.B., referring to when a perpetrator makes an emotional connection with a child victim to lower their defences against abuse.
When it came to the boy鈥檚 claims against T.B., Skogstad pointed to the boy鈥檚 鈥渋nappropriate behaviour鈥� with another boy, which he said was brought up when the boy鈥檚 father brought him to Vancouver Island in December 2012.
But Swanson noted a child鈥檚 testimony cannot be evaluated as one would evaluate an adult鈥檚 testimony 鈥� one can expect some inconsistency in a young boy鈥檚 testimony, especially when that testimony is several years after the incident.
鈥淚n my submission, the iPod issue is really a red herring,鈥� Swanson countered. 鈥淲hether (the boy) lost his iPod or it was stolen from in him January of 2012 or whether it was stolen from him later or misplaced later really doesn鈥檛 go to the key issue. The key issue is to what extent was T.B. exploiting (the boy).鈥�
On those issues, Swanson argued, the boy was steadfast in his testimony.
Justice Alison Beames said she would not have time to properly articulate her reasons for her verdict by Friday afternoon. She is expected to deliver her verdict Monday morning.
@dustinrgodfrey
dustin.godfrey@pentictonwesternnews.com
Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
