Appeals court denies bail for man convicted of abusing daughter

Quispamsis man, 78, asked to be released to care for sick wife pending appeal but court ruled he lacks an 'arguable' case

Article content A 78-year-old man appealing an eight-year sentence for sexually assaulting his adoptive daughter was denied a request for bail, the Court of Appeal ruled Thursday. The Quispamsis man was sentenced in May after being convicted in March on charges of sexual assault and sexual exploitation of his daughter from 2007 to 2019. The man is appealing and had applied for interim release, arguing he needed to care for his wife, who is ailing from a serious illness.

In a ruling issued Thursday by the Court of Appeal, Justice Denise LeBlanc said the man had not proved an “arguable” ground of appeal and that his release would not be in the public interest. Brunswick News is withholding details in the case due to a publication ban that protects information that could tend to identify the victim. At trial, the girl, now 23, testified that her adoptive father began touching her sexually starting when she was age five, and initiated sex acts with her when she was a teenager, with the abuse continuing until she left home at age 17, according to the trial decision from Judge Kelly Ann Winchester.

The man denied the assaults, alleging that the girl was manipulative and making it up for money. A 51-year-old woman, who was the defendant’s daughter from his first marriage, came forward to testify that he had abused her as a youth from age seven to age 12, which the defendant denied, Winchester told the court. The testimony had been accepted as admissible, with Winchester finding it established a “distinct pattern of behaviour.”

The defendant, who was out on an undertaking, had been given time to arrange his affairs, but at sentencing, his lawyer asked for 48 hours so the man could take his ailing wife to a medical appointment. The judge held off on her decision until to the afternoon on the same day to allow time to make further arrangements. The defendant also read a letter asking to be let out on bail pending appeal “so I can stay with my wife,” saying he is her sole caregiver.

He was taken into custody once the sentence was delivered. In the Court of Appeal ruling, LeBlanc wrote that for bail on appeal, the presumption of innocence does not apply and an appellant must prove that the appeal is not frivolous, that the appellant will turn themselves in when ordered and that the detention “is not necessary in the public interest.” The man filed a notice of appeal alleging five grounds of appeal, according to the ruling, including misapprehending the evidence, failing to address inconsistencies, relying on facts not in evidence, improperly assessing whether a reasonable doubt existed and imposing an unreasonable and unfit sentence.

He also argued in an affidavit that his absence would create a health risk for his wife, who has been diagnosed with a serious illness, the judges wrote. According to the ruling, the man, who was self-represented, said he was not “adequately prepared” to proceed with his application for interim release, which was heard June 10. The transcripts have not been completed, but the Crown said they would make recordings available and offered to adjourn the hearing, to which the appellant declined.

“In his view, he would need to be released from custody to properly prepare both his application for release pending appeal and the appeal itself,” LeBlanc wrote. The Crown argued that the man had failed to prove his appeal was not frivolous and his detention was not in the public interest, according to LeBlanc. It argued that listing grounds for an appeal was not enough to prove the appeal was not frivolous, to which the justice agreed.

LeBlanc wrote that while she was “sympathetic to the hardship” caused by the appellant’s wife’s illness, she said that alone did not satisfy the requirements for interim release. The justice wrote that she was not satisfied the man “has established an arguable ground of appeal.” “Having regard to the nature of the grounds advanced, the seriousness of the offence, the fact that the offending conduct occurred over many years, his release would not be in the public interest,” LeBlanc wrote.