Trial ends for man accused of sexually assaulting child

Justice Vikas Khaladkar must determine, among other things, whether Brettley Anthony Fish was a child himself at the time of the alleged offences

Editor’s note: This story contains details of sexual assault that some readers may find disturbing.

Even if a Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court judge accepts that Brettley Anthony Fish is guilty of sexually and physically assaulting a child, his analysis of the evidence presented this week at trial won’t end there.

Justice Vikas Khaladkar must then determine whether or not Fish was a child himself when the assault took place.

Fish, 25, has pleaded not guilty to assaulting a boy in a rural community in Newfoundland in 2014. The complainant testified as the trial got underway in St. John’s this week, telling the court it had been dark in the room where he was assaulted, but he had caught a glimpse in the moonlight of his attacker, who then pushed him into a position where he was unable to see and held him there. The complainant said he had been familiar with Fish and recognized him by his figure and his voice, and Fish was the only person present at the location who matched those characteristics.

The complainant’s identity is protected by a publication ban, as is the identity of all alleged victims of sexual assault in court, and Saltwire Network is withholding certain details that could lead to his identification.

“He told me not to tell anyone because no one would believe me or he’d deny it. Words to that effect,” the complainant testified.

He didn’t tell anyone he had been assaulted, until he revealed it to his parents two years later. They urged him to speak with police, and he did.

Prosecutor Stephanie Roberts and defence lawyer Rosellen Sullivan presented their closing arguments to Khaladkar Friday morning, Oct. 22, on an unusual and very specific circumstance arising from conflicting testimony about the date of the alleged assaults. If the court finds Fish guilty and accepts that the assaults happened in 2014, it can proceed with sentencing Fish as an adult. If the court finds him guilty but can’t rule out the possibility that the assaults took place a year earlier, the case must be sent to youth court for trial, since Fish would have been a minor himself at the time.

Sullivan submitted Khaladkar won’t need to go that far because there isn’t enough evidence to find Fish guilty of the assaults. She pointed to the complainant’s identification of the accused by figure and voice only; an RCMP investigation that had included leading questions and no interviews with anyone but the complainant; and evidence indicating the complainant had a history of drug use and mental-health issues with possible hallucinations as factors making the case against Fish unreliable.

Roberts argued the medical evidence carries little weight, since it amounts to hearsay from meetings years after the alleged assaults and is, for the most part, irrelevant to the case.

“We should not follow a path that (the complainant’s) mental-health issues or drug use makes him less credible,” she said.

Police hadn’t found a need to interview anyone but the complainant because no one else was present when the assaults occurred, Roberts argued, and the investigator had questioned the boy in a way to make it easier for him to open up. The complainant had been steadfast in his evidence, and the timelines and descriptions of the location and events involving Fish and the complainant didn’t necessarily contradict his testimony, she submitted.

“Both sides have raised some issues that require some scrutiny and attention,” Khaladkar said, scheduling the delivery of his decision in the matter for Nov. 18.