Editor’s note: This article contains graphic details of sexual abuse involving a minor and may not be suitable for some readers. Discretion is strongly advised.
NANAIMO — Credibility and reliability of testimony swayed a judge in finding a man guilty of repeatedly sexually violating a girl in Nanaimo whom he had regular access to over the course of several years.
Charged with sexual interference, sexual assault, and invitation to sexual touching, Michael May, 32, was found guilty on all counts following a judge-alone trial overseen by BC Supreme Court Justice Julianne Lamb, who outlined her decision in Nanaimo on Monday, Nov. 9.
A publication ban protects the victim’s identity, and NanaimoNewsNOW has elected to exclude additional details to further protect the victim.
“I’m not a criminal,” a visibly distressed May said to his grandmother following the judgment.
May persistently made flat denials of any wrongdoing at trial.
Offences involved forced oral sex, attempted intercourse, and repeatedly fondling the victim from 2016 to 2019 when she was between six and a half and 10 years old, Justice Lamb concluded.
May’s grandmother, Enid May, operated an in-home daycare where the trial heard the offender had a constant presence.
The victim regularly slept over at the home.
At trial earlier this year, the complainant testified over the course of two days.
She confided to a school counsellor during the 2021/22 school year, resulting in Nanaimo RCMP launching an investigation.
Lamb found the victim’s version of events “credible and generally reliable,” noting she presented in a calm, direct manner.
The complainant conceded when she had limited recollections, while Justice Lamb credited the girl for declaring she wasn’t great with dates and estimated time periods.
Justice Lamb concluded the following offences transpired beyond a reasonable doubt:
- The first incident involved May kissing the complainant on the mouth while they were watching television. She told court the incident felt “scary and weird,” and she followed May’s instructions not to tell anyone.
- In the home’s kitchen, May placed the complainant’s hand on his genitals.
- May kissed the complainant on the mouth after he gifted her a stitched doll.
- During hide-and-seek, May closed a guest bedroom while counting to 100, removed the complainant’s pants and sexually assaulted her.
- While driving, May touched the complainant’s crotch.
- In a shed on the property, the complainant performed oral sex on May after being instructed to do so. May also attempted sexual intercourse during this occasion.
- May attempted to have intercourse with the complainant in his bedroom.
- May put his hands on the girl’s crotch area while swimming in a Nanaimo lake.
- In a playhouse at the home, May kissed the girl on her mouth and placed her hand on his genitals.
- May touched the girl’s genitals in a fort he had built
- Sexual contact transpired by May toward the girl as she sat on his lap on multiple occasions.
- May repeatedly sexually violated the girl as she was in her bedroom over the course of three years.
Defence witness testimony questioned
May flatly denied any wrongdoing at trial.
His testimony, as well as commentary on the witness stand from his grandmother, Enid May, were viewed skeptically by the presiding judge.
Justice Lamb didn’t believe the defence’s case suggesting the children at the daycare were always together and Enid May, aside from going to the bathroom and being in the kitchen, watched all of the children 100 per cent of the time.
Enid May’s evidence suggested the accused was rarely at home, had limited contact with the complainant, and had no opportunity to commit the alleged acts, which the judge disputed.
Insisted by Enid May the accused was working full-time, Michael May made concessions during cross-examinations, revealing the claim was not true.
Justice Lamb said Enid May tried to minimize how often the accused was away from the home and how often the complainant slept over.
“I find Enid May was not a credible witness, and her evidence on many points is not reliable,” Justice Lamb said during her lengthy, nearly two-hour-long decision.
The judge rejected the defence’s assertion the guest bedroom door was always locked.
Under direct examination by defence lawyer Michael Ritzker, May was asked if he placed the complainant’s hands on his genitals in the kitchen.
“Not that I’m aware of,” May responded.
What happens next
Due to recently enacted amendments to the Bail Sentencing and Reform Act, a reverse onus bail provision now applies across the country.
The changes mean, unlike standard bail hearings where Crown counsel must establish why an accused should be kept in custody, the burden has shifted to the accused to demonstrate why they should be released.
In May’s case, he was not in custody prior to the judge’s decision, but since he’s now a convicted sex offender, Crown prosecutor Tania Holland affirmed the need to revoke May’s bail.
Ultimately, May’s bail was revoked later the same afternoon.
May was placed in handcuffs by sheriffs and taken into custody, where he remains.
A future sentencing hearing will be held, followed by Justice Lamb determining an appropriate sentence for May.
The offender had no prior criminal record.
Local news. Delivered. Free. Subscribe to our daily news wrap and get our top local stories delivered to your email inbox every evening.
Follow us on: Twitter (X) | Bluesky | Facebook
