Lawyers made closing arguments in NWT Supreme Court on Thursday in the trial of a man accused of committing sexual offences against an underage girl.
Justin Minute, 39, pleaded not guilty on Monday to charges of sexual assault, luring a child and voyeurism in Fort Smith and Hay River between 2009 and 2020.
During the four-day trial, the complainant in the case – who is now a young woman – testified that Minute had hugged her in a way that made her uncomfortable and made sexual jokes to her.
She said he once brought up the word orgasm during conversation and alleged that when she asked him what it meant, he touched her on the lower back and said he would show her.
She also spoke about an occasion where she was using a bathroom and saw Minute’s phone with the camera turned on and pointed toward the shower.
Advertisement.
Advertisement.
Minute’s former partner testified that he had confessed to committing the crimes to her, including an incident where he allegedly pulled the girl’s underwear down while she was sleeping and masturbated.
In text messages and recorded phone calls between Minute and the woman, he said he ought to be in jail and expressed feeling bad.
Minute denied all of the allegations.
He testified he had unintentionally left his phone in the bathroom and turned the camera on with his Apple watch in order to find where he had misplaced it.
Advertisement.
Advertisement.
He denied confessing to any crimes and said his statements in text messages and phone calls were due to him catastrophizing being wrongly accused.
‘Unclear, unreliable and difficult to parse’
Defence lawyer Evan McIntyre argued that the Crown’s evidence did not meet the threshold of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, describing it as “unclear, unreliable and difficult to parse.”
He said his client should be acquitted of all charges.
McIntrye said convicting a man of sexual assault for unwanted hugs and brushing past someone accidentally would be “absurd.”
He questioned the credibility of the complainant’s evidence, saying she had recharacterized events over time and after reflection.
McIntyre argued that Minute’s explanation for why his phone was in the bathroom was reasonable. He pointed out that police analysis of Minute’s phone and Apple watch did not recover any recordings of the bathroom.
McIntyre said there was “virtually no case” without the evidence of Minute’s former partner, but said her evidence “strained credulity.”
He said both Minute and the woman were high on high-potency marijuana when Minute allegedly confessed to her in person. He said details in that alleged confession contradicted evidence given by other witnesses and there was no evidence supporting the allegation that Minute had pulled the girl’s underwear down and masturbated.
Advertisement.
Advertisement.
McIntyre said Minute’s statements in text messages and phone calls were consistent with someone who had been wrongly accused. He said that while Minute’s words could be interpreted in a damning way, they were not precise or clear.
McIntyre argued that the allegations of luring against his client were “paper thin.” He said while Minute’s text messages to the girl may have included some off-colour jokes and inappropriate comments, they were “not even close” to meeting the threshold of being sent for the purpose of committing a sexual offence.
“This is a far cry from luring,” he said, adding the court had to be careful not to criminalize conduct that may be untoward or inappropriate.
The Crown’s case
Crown prosecutor Morgan Fane disputed McIntyre’s characterization of the complainant’s evidence.
He said her account may have changed from her first statement to police as she did not initially want to believe what Minute had done. He said her testimony was clear, careful and candid.
By contrast, Fane argued that Minute’s testimony was “not capable of belief.”
Fane further argued that Minute’s statements to his former partner were an “unequivocal” confession of guilt. He said Minute made repeated admissions that corroborated the complainant’s testimony.
Fane said Minute’s text messages to the girl, which included sexual comments, did meet the threshold for luring.
He said normalizing sexual conversation makes it more likely that the offences of invitation to sexual touching, child pornography, indecent exposure or sexual assault could happen in the future.
Justice Karin Taylor is expected to make a decision in the case on August 28.
