Jose recently represented a law professor who was accused of assault by penetration and sexual assaults of his now ex-wife on two separate dates. During the trial, the Crown offered no evidence on the count which related to the earlier date.
Jose subsequently made a successful application to stay proceedings as an abuse of process on the ground that the Defendant could now not have a fair trial. Jose argued that the Defendant would be seriously prejudiced if the complainant was cross-examined on inconsistencies in relation to the earlier incident as the jury would hear about an allegation which was strikingly similar to the remaining counts. Jose submitted conversely that the Defendant would also be seriously prejudiced if the complainant was not cross-examined on those inconsistencies. This was a novel argument which resulted in the case being stayed on the basis of an abuse of process.
