A Charlottetown woman had her conviction for sexual exploitation overturned Wednesday in a case involving a girl she used to coach.
Jillian Anderson was sentenced in Provincial Court to five months in January 2008, but the Supreme Court of P.E.I. tossed out the conviction.
"The appellant's conviction rests on shaky ground and it would not be safe to maintain it," Justice J. A. McQuaid wrote in the decision.
Anderson was accused of sexually exploiting a girl she met in 2005.
Anderson, 20 at the time, was an assistant coach on the girl's soccer team. The sexual activity was alleged to have taken place after the girl left the team, between October 2006 and February 2007, when the girl was 15.
The Supreme Court looked at both whether sexual activity between Anderson and the girl could be described as exploitative, and whether any activity took place at all.
The court noted the girl had difficulty describing the sexual conduct. Also, descriptions of body markings on Anderson, in particular some tattoos, were incomplete and inaccurate.
Anderson denied any sexual activity took place.
"The evidence of the complainant is unreliable and therefore incapable of being the basis upon which a trier of fact properly instructed could reasonably conclude the sexual conduct took place," wrote McQuaid.
"It is clear that [the judge] did not consider all the evidence nor did he test the reliability of the evidence he did accept."
Police interviews questioned
Police conduct also came under scrutiny in the Supreme Court decision. The court found questioning of the girl in a video-recorded interview leading, following the detail in a journal given to police by the girl.
The journal was only given to police after two interviews in which she did not describe the sexual conduct.
Regarding whether a sexual relationship would have been exploitative, the court found the judge did not give the question due consideration.
"He considered that proof of the sexual conduct beyond a reasonable doubt was proof that the relationship was exploitative and thus proof of the offence," the ruling reads.
The court found the judge did not adequately separate the two aspects of the case, whether there was a sexual relationship, and whether a sexual relationship would have been exploitative.
