R. v. U.H.C.

R. v. U.H.C.

Applying binding authority (R. v. Ross), a mistaken belief that a complainant was 14 can ground a defence only if the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain age; the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused failed to take those steps; here the Crown proved the accused took no reasonable steps, so the accused could not rely on mistake-of-age and was guilty of sexual assault under s.271, with a s.36 Youth Criminal Justice Act finding of guilt.

Citation
2015 NSPC 10
Parties
Crown (prosecution): Her Majesty the Queen; Accused (young Person): U.H.C.
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Youth Sexual Assault (criminal) / Verdict (trial)
Outcome
Guilty; s.36 Youth Criminal Justice Act finding of guilt as charged.
Legal Topics
Consent, Mistake of Age, Age of Consent S.150.1 Criminal Code, Burden of Proof, Credibility Findings, Close in Age Exception
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Youth Justice Sexual Offences Statutory Interpretation Evidence Consent Mistake of Age Age of Consent S.150.1 Criminal Code +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown (prosecution)

U.H.C.

Accused (young Person)

Procedural Posture

Youth Sexual Assault (criminal) / Verdict (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether mistake of age can ground a defence in respect of a complainant under 16
  2. 2 Whether the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age as required by s.150.1(4) and (6)
  3. 3 Whether consent by a 12-year-old is legally effective

Ratio Decidendi

Applying binding authority (R. v. Ross), a mistaken belief that a complainant was 14 can ground a defence only if the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain age; the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused failed to take those steps; here the Crown proved the accused took no reasonable steps, so the accused could not rely on mistake-of-age and was guilty of sexual assault under s.271, with a s.36 Youth Criminal Justice Act finding of guilt.

Court Disposition

Guilty; s.36 Youth Criminal Justice Act finding of guilt as charged.

Orders

  • Publication ban: no information identifying the complainant may be published, broadcast or transmitted in any way.
  • Publication ban: no person shall publish the name of U.H.C. or any information identifying the young person as a young person dealt with under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.