Not On Record Podcast

EP#230 | Eight and a Half Years in Prison: Sean Parker on His Case and the UK Justice System

Sponsored by EasyDNS

Move your domain or web hosting to EasyDNS and support Not On Record:

https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord

Use promo code: notonrecord

Should an accused person testify in their own defence, even when cross-examination could expose them to difficult questions?

In Episode 230 of Not On Record, hosts Joseph Neuberger, Michael Bury and Diana Davison speak with British artist, writer and musician Sean B.W. Parker about his book, Magnolia Graffiti, which chronicles his experience of conviction, imprisonment and the British criminal justice system.

Parker discusses his account of the allegations against him, the decisions made during his trial, his reasons for not testifying, and the challenges of maintaining his innocence while incarcerated. He also reflects on his experience with the appeals process and the personal impact of spending eight and a half years in prison.

The conversation explores broader questions about criminal defence strategy, jury selection, cross-examination, sexual assault proceedings and the difficulties faced by people who maintain their innocence following conviction.

The hosts conclude with a discussion of the decision to testify in one’s own defence, including why explaining a speech impediment to a jury may be an important consideration when preparing an accused to give evidence.

In this episode:

- Sean Parker’s book, Magnolia Graffiti

- His account of the allegations, trial and conviction

- The strategic decision not to testify

- Speech impediments and the challenges of cross-examination

- Jury selection in the UK and Canada

- Maintaining innocence while incarcerated

- Appeals and the criminal justice system

- Lessons for criminal defence lawyers and accused persons

Guest: Sean B.W. Parker

Book: Magnolia Graffiti

Subscribe to Not On Record for discussions about criminal law, courtroom strategy, controversial cases and issues affecting the Canadian justice system.

18 Months in Prison for The Wrong Username

Sponsored by EasyDNS

Move your domain or web hosting to EasyDNS and support Not On Record:

https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord

Use promo code: notonrecord

## Description

How can one tiny difference in a digital username lead to an innocent man spending 18 months in prison?

In Episode 229 of Not On Record, Joseph Neuberger, Michael Bury and Diana Davison examine the extraordinary case of R. v. Klayme, 2026 NSCA 59, in which the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal ultimately found that Brandon Klayme was factually innocent and should never have been charged.

The investigation began with a Kik username containing two underscores. Police records instead pursued a username containing only one. That small discrepancy sent investigators down the wrong digital trail, ultimately leading them to Klayme. Despite searches of his devices producing no evidence connecting him to the alleged communications, the case proceeded and resulted in a conviction and an 18-month prison sentence.

The episode explores digital tunnel vision, the danger of treating digital evidence as infallible, the importance of investigating exculpatory evidence, and the enormous consequences when an investigative theory becomes institutional truth.

The discussion also examines comments about sexual-assault trials, cross-examination, the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, support measures for complainants, and concerns about expanding the use of CCTV testimony.

A powerful episode about wrongful convictions, digital evidence, due process and why the safeguards of the criminal justice system matter.

Not On Record | EP#228 | When Judges Apply Two Standards: The Appeal Court Response

Sponsored by EasyDNS

Move your domain or web hosting to EasyDNS and support Not On Record:

https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord

Use promo code: notonrecord

In Episode 228 of *Not On Record*, Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison examine **R. v. Hornsby, 2026 ONCA 604**, a significant Ontario Court of Appeal decision dealing with credibility assessment and “uneven scrutiny” in a criminal trial.

The Court of Appeal quashed convictions on all counts and ordered new trials after finding that the trial judge applied different standards when assessing the accused and complainant’s evidence. The judgment provides a useful framework for identifying flawed credibility analysis, including disproportionate attention to minor inconsistencies, treating detail as evidence of credibility for one witness but evidence of fabrication for another, relying on stereotypes or generalizations, failing to grapple with material weaknesses, and effectively reversing the burden of proof.

Joseph and Diana also discuss why detailed written closing submissions matter, how lawyers can build the record for an appeal, and why credibility analysis must be conducted carefully and independently for each count.

EP#227 | Judge Cross-Examines Accused, Conviction Overturned

Sponsored by EasyDNS

Move your domain or web hosting to EasyDNS and support Not On Record:

https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord

Use promo code: notonrecord

Can a trial judge cross-examine an accused? A recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision raises that question in dramatic fashion.

In Episode 227 of Not On Record, Joseph Neuberger, Michael Bury and Noriana discuss a 2026 Ontario Court of Appeal decision in which a sexual assault conviction was overturned because the trial judge’s conduct created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The judge questioned the accused extensively after the Crown had already completed its cross-examination, with seven pages of transcript devoted to the judge’s questioning. The Court of Appeal found that the questions went far beyond simple clarification and amounted to cross-examination. Even more significantly, the trial judge relied on evidence that emerged from her own questioning when assessing the accused’s credibility and reliability.

The episode examines the limits of judicial intervention, reasonable apprehension of bias, the importance of an impartial trial, delayed allegations, credibility assessments, memory, and what defence counsel can do when they believe a judge has crossed the line.

The case is a fascinating reminder that justice must not only be done, but must also appear to be done.

Sponsored by EasyDNS

Move your domain or web hosting to EasyDNS and support Not On Record:

https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord

Use promo code: notonrecord

The discussion looks at the unusual legal position now facing the defence, including a motion asking the judge to enter an acquittal following the hung jury. We examine how reasonable doubt works, why a jury cannot simply substitute its personal morality for the law, and the important differences between the Massachusetts approach and Canada’s law on not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

Joseph also draws on his 19 years sitting on the Ontario Review Board and his experience handling mental health cases to explain psychosis, command hallucinations, postpartum depression, infanticide and what actually happens when someone is found not criminally responsible.

The episode also addresses the evidence surrounding Clancy’s alleged suicide attempts, the role of her reported mental illness, her civil action against physicians, and why finding someone not criminally responsible is absolutely not a “get out of jail free card.”

A difficult case raises difficult questions, but the legal system still requires jurors to apply the law, even when the facts are emotionally overwhelming.

Subscribe to *Not On Record*, leave a comment, and let us know what you think.

This discussion is for informational purposes and is not legal advice.

**Sponsored by EasyDNS**

Move your domain or web hosting to EasyDNS and support Not On Record:

https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord

Use promo code: **notonrecord**

In Episode 225 of Not On Record, criminal defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger and Michael Bury examine a little-discussed legal issue that could have major consequences in sexual assault trials. Can Crown counsel cross-examine an accused on what was omitted from a section 276 affidavit, effectively turning defence strategy into evidence? Joined by articling student Noriana, they explore solicitor-client privilege, the purpose of section 276 applications, key Supreme Court of Canada decisions including R. v. Darrach, R. v. Goldfinch, and R. v. J.J., and why this emerging courtroom tactic could have significant implications for fairness, trial strategy, and future appeals.

**Sponsored by EasyDNS**

Move your domain or web hosting to EasyDNS and support Not On Record:

https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord

Use promo code: **notonrecord**

Can a person be convicted of sexual assault without any sexual intent? In Episode 224 of *Not On Record*, criminal defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison examine the Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision in **R. v. Roan, 2026 ABCA 260**, exploring how Canadian law defines sexual assault through the protection of a person’s sexual integrity rather than sexual motive. They also discuss the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in **R. v. SSD, 2026 ONCA 579**, and its application of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in **R. v. Berg**, reinforcing the importance of the reasonable doubt standard, the proper application of **W.(D.)**, and why judges must provide clear, consistent reasons for conviction. This episode examines two significant appellate decisions that highlight fundamental principles of Canadian criminal law and the safeguards that protect the integrity of the justice system.

Sponsored by EasyDNS

Move your domain or web hosting to EasyDNS and support Not On Record:

https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord

Use promo code: notonrecord

Ontario has introduced sweeping new bail regulations requiring cash deposits before many accused persons can be released, even after a justice has granted bail.

Criminal defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger explains what has changed, why many lawyers believe the new rules create a two-tier justice system, and why the Criminal Lawyers’ Association and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association are challenging the legislation.

Topics include:

• Ontario’s new cash bail requirements

• Sureties and how bail works

• Charter rights and the presumption of innocence

• Reverse onus provisions

• Overcrowded jails

• Public safety versus constitutional rights

• Why critics argue these reforms punish poverty instead of crime

Is this meaningful bail reform, or simply the illusion of public safety?

Sponsored by EasyDNS

Move your domain or web hosting to EasyDNS and support Not On Record:

https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord

Use promo code: notonrecord

How far can consent go?

In this episode of Not On Record, Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison return to an issue they have discussed several times: the complicated intersection of BDSM, sexual consent and Canadian criminal law.

For people involved in BDSM and alternative sexual communities, consent can be highly structured. Partners may negotiate boundaries in advance, use safe words or colour systems, communicate exactly what acts they are comfortable with, and even put their agreements in writing.

So what happens when someone later complains?

Joseph discusses two current cases involving clients who had established specific communication systems for consent, yet were still charged with sexual assault. The central question is whether negotiated consent systems have any legal protection when the criminal law is applied after the fact.

Sponsored by EasyDNS

Move your domain or web hosting to EasyDNS and support Not On Record:

https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord

Use promo code: notonrecord

In Episode 222 of Not On Record, Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison examine a question that clients ask repeatedly: “Why am I being charged when the police never investigated my side of the story?”

The discussion focuses on the distinction between taking a complainant’s statement and conducting a full, objective investigation.

Joseph and Diana walk through a real case in which the accused provided police with detailed information about the events, including potential witnesses, receipts, locations, CCTV footage, phone evidence, dash-cam footage and other information that could potentially confirm or contradict the allegations.

Yet many of those investigative avenues were not pursued.

The episode explores:

• What grounds police need before laying a criminal charge

• Whether taking a complainant’s statement can constitute an “investigation”

• Why police may not conduct follow-up interviews

• The importance of CCTV and other time-sensitive digital evidence

• What happens when police seize a phone but don’t promptly extract the evidence

• How the defence can attempt to preserve and obtain evidence police haven’t collected

• When third-party records, including medical records, may become relevant

• Why an accused person’s request for police to investigate potentially exculpatory evidence matters

• The role of Crown counsel in reassessing whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction

• The consequences of failing to conduct an objective investigation

• Why proper investigations ultimately protect both accused people and genuine victims