(DIR) Home
        
        
       Sparks fly between Crown, defence during closing arguments in Robert
       Regular trial
        
 (HTM) Source
        
       ----------------------------------------------------------------------
        
       The sexual assault trial of lawyer Robert Regular, 72, wrapped up
       Tuesday afternoon with closing arguments at Supreme Court in St.
       John's. (Ariana Kelland/CBC)
        
       The sexual assault trial of Conception Bay South businessman and
       lawyer Robert Regular wrapped up Tuesday, with defence counsel arguing
       the Crown hadn't proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
        
       Regular, 72, is charged with four counts of sexual assault and one of
       sexual interference, all involving the same complainant.
        
       The complainant, who is now in her mid-30s, was 12 at the time of the
       first alleged assault two decades ago. There is a publication ban on
       her identity.
        
       Regular has .
        
       During her closing argument Tuesday at Supreme Court in St. John's,
       defence counsel Rosellen Sullivan focused on what she said were
       inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, like her timeline of
       events and her contact with Regular over the years.
        
       Sullivan said the Crown's case was "fraught with inconsistencies,
       improbabilities, impossibilities and downright fabrications" that hurt
       the complainant's credibility. The complainant's statements changed
       over time, said Sullivan, including while she was on the stand in
       court.
        
       "It is a rare case, I would submit to you, where the Crown's case has
       so many internal problems and at the same time, the defence's case is
       so strong," said Sullivan.
        
       ## Defence links presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt
        
       Defence counsel Jerome Kennedy spoke about the link between the legal
       principles of proof beyond reasonable doubt and the presumption of
       innocence of the accused.
        
       "The two concepts are forever as closely linked as Romeo and Juliet or
       Oberon and Titania. And they must be presented together," he said.
       "The presumption of innocence is the golden thread of criminal justice
       and proof beyond reasonable doubt is the silver, and these two threads
       are forever intertwined in the fabric of criminal law."
        
       He said the Crown had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt,
       and the defence asked for an acquittal on all five charges.
        
       Crown prosecutor Deidre Badcock took issue with Kennedy's remarks,
       when he suggested her closing argument would include the possibility
       that Regular's calendar of appointments had been tampered with.
        
       "There is ample evidence to contradict the Crown's position," said
       Kennedy.
        
       Kennedy said Crown prosecutor Deidre Badcock would make submissions in
       her final statement about the possibility that Regular's calendar of
       appointments had been tampered with but he said there is no evidence
       to support the allegation.
        
       "The allegation of the tampering with or manipulation of records is
       pure speculation and should be ignored by the court," he said.
        
       Badcock rose from her seat while Kennedy was talking about the
       "Crown's conduct."
        
       "I haven't even made a comment yet and I'm being accused of making
       inflammatory comments," she said. "This is purely offensive to me and
       my duty. I have not spoken. I have not made a closing statement. And
       we're literally talking about how I'm going to make inflammatory
       statements. This is not appropriate closing submissions."
        
       ## Complainant was consistent, argues Crown
        
       In Badcock's closing argument, she refuted the importance Sullivan had
       placed on inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, which
       Badcock called "peripheral" and said didn't detract from her overall
       testimony.
        
       Badcock said it can be difficult for people to recall or describe
       accurately traumatic events at a later date.
        
       "A witness cannot be expected to have a faithful memory of minor
       incidents that occurred during a traumatic event, and an inability to
       recall minor or insignificant events does not detract from a witness's
       overall reliability or credibility," said Badcock.
        
       It's human nature to try to make sense from bits of memory, she added.
        
       "When you look at the whole of the evidence, the Crown says yes, there
       are certainly some problems in the evidence of [the complainant] on
       peripheral matters. But her answers on the subject matter are
       consistent."
        
       When all the evidence is considered, she said, the Crown had proven
       its case beyond reasonable doubt andRegular should be found guilty.
        
       Justice Vikas Khaladkar is scheduled to deliver his decision on June
       27.
        
        **Previous trial coverage:**
        
        _ **Download our**_ _ **free CBC News app**_ _ **to sign up for push
       alerts for CBC Newfoundland and Labrador.**_ _ **Click here to visit
       our landing page**_ _ **.**_
        
        
        
        
       ______________________________________________________________________
                                                 Served by Flask-Gopher/2.2.1