By Canadian Press

None of alleged trial errors raised by Rafferty on appeal occurred: Appeal Court

Nov 3, 2016 | 10:00 AM

TORONTO — Ontario’s top court rejected all the arguments raised on appeal by the man who killed eight-year-old Victoria Stafford, ruling that the performance of the trial judge who handled the original case was “exemplary.”

The detailed written ruling released on Wednesday came just over a week after the Court of Appeal for Ontario orally dismissed Michael Rafferty’s appeal on the day it was argued in Toronto.

“The trial judge made none of the errors that the appellant has raised. On the contrary, his handling of a difficult trial was, in our view, exemplary,” the court wrote in the ruling laying out its reasons for dismissing the appeal.

Rafferty was sentenced to life in prison in 2012 in the kidnapping, sexual assault and first-degree murder of the Woodstock, Ont., girl.

His trial heard that in 2009 Victoria was abducted on her way home from school and taken to a field where she was eventually killed. Her battered body was discovered months later.

first response

New staffing model on Gabriola Island hires local paramedics for enhanced patient care

1h ago

modified weapon

Sawed-off shotgun seized after Nanaimo RCMP spot well-known offender

15h ago

rainbow eyes

Nanaimo judge hands old growth logging protestor additional jail time

17h ago

Rafferty’s accomplice, Terri-Lynne McClintic, pleaded guilty in 2010 to first-degree murder.

She was the key witness at Rafferty’s trial, telling a horrifying story of a drug-addled couple abducting a young girl at random for the man’s sexual pleasure, then killing her with inconceivable brutality.

McClintic initially told police Rafferty killed the girl, but testified at his trial that she delivered the fatal blows. The Crown at trial argued it didn’t matter whether McClintic or Rafferty physically killed Victoria — he was guilty because they acted together.

Rafferty, however, argued in his appeal that he was a mere bystander at the scene and that he was, at most, guilty of being an accessory after the fact to murder.

His lawyer argued that some of Rafferty’s actions after the killing — such as cleaning his car, disposing of clothing and giving a false alibi — were consistent with being an accessory after the fact.

The Court of Appeal disagreed.

“There was simply no evidence upon which a properly instructed jury acting reasonably could have found the appellant guilty solely of being an accessory,” it found.

“There was no evidential foundation – no “air of reality” – for the appellant’s submission that he was simply helping McClintic after she committed the offences. On the contrary, a large body of evidence contradicted this theory.”

Rafferty had also argued that the trial judge erroneously instructed the jury on his action of removing part of a seat from his car, and erred in admitting a portion of a video statement McClintic made to police. The Appeal Court found none of those errors were made.

Rafferty further argued that the trial judge erred by not giving the jury what is called a Vetrovec warning, which cautions juries about the testimony of untrustworthy witnesses — in this case, McClintic.

The Appeal Court found the trial judge had not made a mistake and even noted that Rafferty’s trial lawyer was the one who made a tactical decision not to ask for such a warning.

“The trial judge instructed the jury concerning McClintic’s criminal record and the use the jury could make of it in assessing her credibility, but gave no Vetrovec warning. He made no error in doing so, and there is no basis to interfere with the exercise of his discretion,” the Appeal Court wrote.

Diana Mehta, The Canadian Press