BREAKING: former teacher found not guilty of molesting student

Justice Andy Mahar is expected to give his verdict later today in the sex abuse trial of former Kimmirut teacher Phillip Flynn. (FILE PHOTO)

(Updated 10 a.m. June 12)

Philip Flynn, a former Kimmirut teacher, has been found not guilty of molesting a male student about 10 to 15 years ago.

Justice Andy Mahar, who was hearing the judge-alone case, rendered his verdict June 12, saying that given all the evidence — including that the boy, who had consumed alcohol the night before, might have been sleepy and hungover — “I have to have reasonable doubt,” about Flynn’s guilt.

Flynn’s three-day trial wrapped up at the Nunavut Court of Justice in Iqaluit June 11 after lawyers made their final arguments before Justice Andy Mahar.

“This boils down to a he-said, he-said case,” defence lawyer Paul Falvo told Mahar, who presided over the trial which included testimony from four witnesses.

The two main pieces of evidence came from the complainant, whose name may not be published, and the accused, Flynn.

Predictably, Falvo said the complainant’s testimony was less credible than that of his client, while Crown prosecutor Zachary Horricks argued the opposite.

In April 2013 Kimmirut police charged Flynn, who is originally from Newfoundland, with one count of sexual assault and one count of sexual exploitation in connection with an incident alleged to have occurred between 1999 and 2004.

During the trial, the sole complainant in the case testified he was molested by his former teacher and guidance counsellor while on a non-school related trip to a secluded cabin outside Kimmirut.

The complainant said he was in Grade 10 or Grade 11 at the time of the trip, with small group of boys close to him in age.

Flynn, who gave evidence June 10 and June 11, said the complainant lied — the teacher testified he never went on a non-school trip to the cabin with his former student.

Flynn also rejected the complainant’s testimony that he tried to buy the youth’s silence with bribes, and that he provided the boys with alcohol on that trip.

Instead of bribes, Falvo told Mahar his client’s generosity was taken for granted by the complainant over a 10-year span after the alleged incident, when the complainant willingly remained friends with Flynn.

The extent of that friendship — which included Flynn giving gifts of money, regular suppers at his Kimmirut home and one trip to each Ottawa and Iqaluit — casts doubt on the credibility of the complainant’s testimony, Falvo argued.

“If Mr. Flynn was going to assault [the complainant], why wouldn’t he do it when they were alone in his home, or in an Ottawa hotel room?” Falvo asked Mahar.

The complainant testified that he felt “trapped” in his friendship with Flynn after the incident allegedly took place, scared of losing friends who also hung out at Flynn’s Kimmirut home.

What’s more likely, Falvo argued, is that the complainant “called on Philip Flynn when he needed something,” and that maybe Flynn “needed to be needed.”

Flynn bailed the complainant out in 2007 or 2008, the court heard, by lending the youth a few hundred dollars after he ran into some trouble while selling weed.

Falvo pointed out that the complainant asked for money for similar reasons on two subsequent occasions, but was refused by Flynn.

“It could be that [the complainant] saw the gravy train drying up, I don’t know,” Flynn said, adding the defence did not need to prove an ulterior motive on the complainant’s part for the judge to acquit his client.

But during his June 11 testimony, Flynn speculated the complainant lied while testifying because the gravy train did dry up.

While answering questions during cross-examination from prosecutor Horricks, Flynn said he thought his refusal to help the complainant get out of drug-related debts led to the false allegations.

“What leads you to that conclusion — is that just a hunch, or anything in specific?” Horricks asked.

“Nothing specific,” Flynn said.

Horricks replied that Flynn’s speculation contradicted evidence given by the complainant, namely that the complainant said he had told others about the alleged molestation on two occasions before Flynn refused to give him money for his drug-dealing problems.

Mahar downplayed the speculation, however.

“Mr. Flynn’s speculation… doesn’t, in my view, have significant impact on his credibility or the complainant’s,” Mahar said.

“It’s speculation — clearly not very well thought through, because of the nature of the other evidence.”

In his final argument before the judge, Horricks said the accused tailored his answers to appear innocent.

For example, during a tense three-hour cross examination on June 11, Horricks asked Flynn to list the group of boys that he went on non-school-related trips with out on the land. Flynn listed six names — but not the complainant’s.

But Horricks said the complainant often hung out with those same boys, including at Flynn’s home, and — like those boys — even went to the former teacher for regular haircuts.

“Are you saying [the complainant] did all these activities with the same group, but wouldn’t go on trips with you?” Horricks asked Flynn during cross-examination.

Flynn testified he never took the complainant on any non-school-related trips on the land, and only remembered one school trip with the complainant to the secluded cabin, Horricks told Mahar.

When asked how many overnight school trips Flynn had taken to the cabin, the former teacher said “never,” that he’d only gone on day trips to the cabin.

Yet the previous day, Horricks pointed out, Flynn testified that it was “possible” the overnight trip described by the complainant did happen and that Flynn just couldn’t remember it.

How could the overnight trip be “possible” if it was only a day trip? Horricks asked Mahar.

“He is tailoring that portion of the testimony to get himself out of trouble,” the lawyer said.

Horricks also said that, as a teacher, Flynn must have been aware of the awkward situation he put himself into by surrounding himself with young boys in a community that is still recovering from the trauma of serial convicted sex offender Ed Horne, who abused Kimmirut boys in the 1980s.

Horricks put his version of events to Flynn during cross-examination.

“If I suggested to you that you realize you have a personal issue, that you did something to someone you care about… that it was very, very hard on you and you had been living with that for years, and that’s what pushed you over the edge…” Horricks said to Flynn during cross-examination.

“No,” Flynn interrupted the lawyer.

“It’s not true that… you took things too far, and touched [the complainant] on his penis, and you’ve been living with that difficult knowledge for years?” Horricks countered.

“No,” Flynn said again.