Warning: This story discusses sexual violence that may be triggering for some readers.
Final submissions were made at the end of a four-day trial in a Williams Lake Supreme Court involving historic sex abuse charges against a former Tsilhqot’in chief.
Ervine Charleyboy, former Chief of Tŝideldel First Nation, is facing charges of indecent assault and gross indecency in relation to alleged historic sexual abuse.
Eighty-year-old Charleyboy has pleaded not guilty to both charges now before B.C. Supreme Court Justice Marguerite Church.
He took the stand in his own defence on Nov. 5, day three of the trial being overseen by Justice Marguerite Church.
The charges stem from incidents of alleged sexual abuse between 1976 and 1980.
The Crown’s only witness, whose identity is protected by a publication ban due to the sexual nature of the crimes, described incidents of touching her genitals, exposing himself and sexual dialogue and threats of sexual violence.
Under questioning by his defence lawyer, A. Zipp, Charleyboy spoke of attending St. Joseph’s Mission Residential School from the time he was six years old until he left after Grade 8.
Charleyboy said he suffered abuse at the residential school and admitted to having challenges with alcohol until he became sober in 1990.
Under Zipp’s questioning, Charleyboy stated he had never touched the witness for the prosecution, and never drank or was drunk at his home.
Under cross-examination by B.C. Prosecution Service Crown Counsel, P. Konge, Charleyboy appeared frustrated at times, and refused to make any concessions related to any kind of physical contact with the witness and appeared to provide contradictory evidence in relation to alcohol, its possible effects on his behaviour or memory.
He accused the witness of using him and provided confusing statements regarding past dealings with her.
Konge worked on establishing a timeline with the help of Charleyboy, on where he lived during those years and the names and ages of his biological children, in order to clarify some of his statements around his behaviour and interactions with minors.
At one point, Charleyboy struggled to recall his biological children’s names and ages, describing one daughter as “in her 40s” and then asserting she must have been born before 1969, in order to try to reaffirm his faithfulness to his then-wife.
Under cross-examination, while still insisting alcohol abuse had not affected his memory or behaviour, Charleyboy acknowledged he would sometimes binge drink to the point of blacking out. Wednesday’s trial day ended with discussions around points of law and trying to clarify Charleyboy’s position on certain items, after his confusing testimony.
Final Submissions
On Nov. 6, Zipp and Konge made their final submissions to the court.
Zipp argued the evidence provided by the prosecution did not establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the charges should be dismissed.
He said there was a late disclosure of evidence and inconsistent evidence. He also accused the witness of having “significantly embellished her evidence,” which he believed undermined the witness’s credibility.
Zipp said “the truth never changes” and called the witness “completely unreliable” and said the evidence given by the witness was “rife with reasonable doubt.”
He said the witness for the prosecution had buried or ignored the allegations when it suited her.
Konge told the court that Charleyboy held a position of trust with the witness, who was a minor at the time of the alleged incidents, and clarified some points of law for the benefit of the public in attendance.
She said reasonable doubt must be derived from reason and the court must look at the evidence in its entirety, citing a previous case involving historic abuse.
Konge used the timeline to highlight points both the witness and Charleyboy in his defence agreed on, and said other parts of his evidence were “not plausible.” She said his refusal to provide reasonable concessions during his evidence “leaves the impression he was making his evidence up as he went along.”
She argued the only substantive change to the Crown’s witness’s evidence was where incidents occurred, which she said were “minor” given the historic nature of the abuse.
“You can be uncomfortable talking about sexual abuse and still be credible,” she said and said the witness’s denial or lack of disclosure of the abuse in prior situations did not discredit her.
Justice Church adjourned court for the day and said she would have a decision on the matter at 2 p.m. on Friday, Nov. 7.