A man who was found not guilty of sexual assault has been convicted of perjury for lying on the stand at his trial, according to a recently published court decision. Frederick Clifford Roland was acquitted on two sexual assault charges in May 2022, with the court finding the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. “I am unable to decide whom to believe and am unable to determine what occurred,” Judge Robert Cutler’s decision said, referring to the central issue of whether the sexual activity was consensual and citing credibility issues with the evidence of both Roland and the female complainant. Three years later, another judge found Roland guilty of one count of perjury — finding he had doctored an email from his accuser and lied about it under oath. An excerpt of the email, which Roland had submitted as evidence, reads: “I will sit with these emotions, and already as I breathing through them, they are slowly dissolving. Wish I could have someone like you to satisfy me (smiling face emoji).” While Roland testified it was an “accurate reflection” of an email exchange he had with the woman, she told the court she did not write the last sentence. “It is clear that there are two different versions of the email at issue in this matter, and it is clear that one of the two versions has been modified from the original,” reads Cutler’s decision in the perjury case. “In the end, based on all of the evidence, I accept the evidence of (the complainant) that she did not write the disputed words.” Email admitted as evidence after days-long hearing The email became a “focal point” of the sexual assault trial, according to the decision in that case. It was allowed into evidence after a multi-day hearing during which Roland argued it could be used to support his defence that the woman consented to sexual activity or, alternatively, that he had an honest but mistaken belief she had consented. These hearings, mandated by what is referred to as the rape shield law in the Criminal Code of Canada, allow an accused person to argue for private records and/or evidence of a complainant’s prior sexual activity to be allowed into evidence. These hearings are meant to guard against trials being tainted by the so-called twin myths that consent to prior sexual activity – whether with the accused or anyone else – means a complainant “is more likely to have consented to the sexual activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge or is less worthy of belief,” section 276 of the Code explains. The email was not admitted as evidence on the issue of consent because the judge found it would be used to make arguments that are “not legitimate defenses” to a sexual assault charge, specifically that consent was implied, given in advance, or that the woman had a “propensity” to consent. But it was allowed in for the specific purpose of challenging the woman’s credibility. The woman told Crown she had “no sexual interest in the accused,” while the email “would seem to suggest a sexual interest,” the judge said. This apparent inconsistency was something Roland’s defence had the right to raise when cross-examining the woman at trial, the judge ruled. “The accused is entitled to challenge the complainant’s credibility by referring to inconsistent statements she has given. Denying the accused the opportunity in this regard may significantly compromise his ability to raise a reasonable doubt,” the decision said. Admission of email ‘ironic,’ trial judge says The trial judge’s decision notes that the issue of the email’s authenticity arose when the complainant was being cross-examined. “She indicated it did not look like an email she would write. She indicated she would not have used the words ‘satisfy me’ and that she does not employ the form of emojis set out in the email. She would not agree that she had written the email,” the decision said. When the court was on break, the woman found the sent message in her Gmail and forwarded it to Crown. “The email located by the complainant does not contain the words ‘wish I could have someone like you to satisfy me’ followed by an emoji of a smiling face,” the court heard. Roland was asked about the email when he took the stand and said the email – with the “satisfy me” sentence – was a “true copy of what he received from the complainant and he did not modify or change the words or alter the contents,” according to the decision. But the judge described Roland’s testimony on the matter as “extremely troubling.” He told the court the email provided was copied and pasted into a Word document and that he was unable to retrieve it from his computer. “The accused provided an extraordinary account of how his computer had fallen into a bucket of water in his residence,” the decision said. “He provided an elaborate description including photographs explaining the sequence of events leading to the computer’s submersion in the water.” The judge found the evidence showed Roland had “altered” the email to include the last sentence. “I am unable to conclude that, because the accused fabricated the email, he must have committed the assault as alleged. However, having concluded that he was prepared to and did fabricate evidence to mislead the court, he has undermined his credibility considerably,” Cutler wrote. “It is indeed ironic that it was on the accused’s application to challenge the complainant’s credibility that the ‘satisfy me’ email was admitted when ultimately it has undermined the accused’s credibility.” The judge said the decision on whether to investigate and prosecute Roland for perjury was a matter for the “proper authorities” to determine. Roland was charged in November 2023, according to publicly available court records. He was given a conditional sentence of two years less a day on Aug. 26, 2025. The decision on sentencing is not publicly available, nor are the details of the conditional sentence order. RELATED STORIES:
