Territorial Court

R. v. Francis, 2003 NWTTC A14
Date: 20030815
Docket: T-3-CR-2003000515

IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

IN THE MATTER OF:


HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN


- and -


GLORIA FRANCIS


Transcript of the Reasons for Judgment delivered by The Honourable Judge R.M. Bourassa, sitting in Fort Mcpherson, in the Northwest Territories, on the 23rd day of July, A.D. 2003.


APPEARANCES:

Ms. S. Bond:   Counsel for the Crown

Mr. T. Boyd:   Counsel for the Defendant


(Charge under s. 84 of the Liquor Act)


THE COURT:   Well, the Supreme Court directs the trial courts how to deal with the evidence.

First of all, I have to ask myself the question whether I believe the accused, Miss Francis. I listened to her evidence carefully and observed her demeanour. In a nutshell, I found her very unpersuasive for a number of reasons, which I'll try and articulate. She's having financial trouble, on her own evidence. She's making approximately $1200 every two weeks. She spends, on one evening in Inuvik, $600 -- approximately $600 entertaining a friend in the bar, providing transportation for a friend to Inuvik, buying approximately $450 of alcohol, 14 bottles for personal consumption. I find that very difficult to accept. However, moving on, she says that two bottles were stolen in the van. But apparently she knew that it had happened and it didn't upset her. It seems that when she says “stolen”, it's more that they were taken with her knowledge and consent. She says that two bottles were taken by a young boy who was in her house when she got home, who ran off with them, leaving her with ten bottles. Ten 26-ounce bottles of vodka. She says that seven people drank those ten bottles somewhere between nine and ten o'clock when she arrived back from Inuvik, and somewhere between two and four a.m., when some of the party-goers left and Miss Francis ended up on the

[Page 1]

street with two friends, walking around, looking for more booze. That's an incredible amount of alcohol for seven people to drink even -- doesn't matter how you add it up. If it's one bottle and a bit for each person, it's difficult to understand how anybody could be walking. If, as she indicates, some people left before two a.m. and it's more than one bottle or a bottle and a half per person, it's difficult to understand how anyone is walking.

At first, it started off that there was an animus between the Crown witness and Miss Francis. Perhaps an invitation to the Court to question the motives of the Crown witness. But it turns out, on her evidence, that since then they've partied at least three times.

All and all, on all of her evidence, I am -- her evidence leaves me cold and totally unpersuaded. I don't accept her evidence.

Looking at the Crown evidence, I still have to be satisfied on that beyond a reasonable doubt. Miss Norman was very straightforward. She admitted she'd been drinking most of the day. I have no indication on how drunk she was. And she wanted to buy a bottle. It's argued that she should have gone, or it would be more reasonable for her to go to other bootleggers that she'd previously dealt with. However, I don't find it unusual, drinking with friends, that one would simply say, Where can I buy

[Page 2]

another bottle? or Where can I get a bottle? She was directed to the accused. She went to the accused with her friend Thomas and found the party going on, asked for liquor. She spoke to no one else other than the accused. The accused told someone else in the house to go and get a bottle and that person did. That person delivered the bottle to Miss Norman. Or to Thomas. It doesn't matter, I think, for the purposes of the offence. The bottles was sealed, it was full. Seventy dollars was paid - she made a mistake on that. I don't find anything untoward on that - and ten dollars was given by way of refund. The money was paid to Miss Francis.

I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt the offence is made out and the accused is convicted.

(CONCLUSION OF REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT)


Certified to be a true and accurate transcript, pursuant to Rules 723 and 724 of the Supreme Court Rules of Court

Jane Romanowich,
Court Reporter

[Page 3]