R. v. L.. P.

R. v. L.. P.

Complainant was unconscious during the touching; unconsciousness legally negates subjective consent (s.273.1(2)(a.1)). Credible corroboration — accused’s admissions, DNA on complainant’s underwear, SANE evidence — established intentional touching and digital penetration. Accused either knew or was wilfully blind/reckless to lack of consent; self‑induced intoxication cannot justify an honest but mistaken belief. Therefore Crown proved actus reus and mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt and the accused is guilty of sexual assault.

Citation
2022 NSPC 6
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: L. P.; Complainant: C.M.
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Assault / Trial — Judgment (conviction)
Outcome
Guilty of sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code
Legal Topics
Consent, Mens Rea, Actus Reus, Intoxication, Publication Ban, Expert Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Evidence Forensic DNA Consent Mens Rea Actus Reus Intoxication +2 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

L. P.

Accused

C.M.

Complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Assault / Trial — Judgment (conviction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the actus reus of sexual assault was established (touching, sexual nature, absence of consent)
  2. 2 Whether the mens rea was established (intention to touch and knowledge/wilful blindness or recklessness as to lack of consent)
  3. 3 Whether the complainant was capable of consenting (unconsciousness)

Ratio Decidendi

Complainant was unconscious during the touching; unconsciousness legally negates subjective consent (s.273.1(2)(a.1)). Credible corroboration — accused’s admissions, DNA on complainant’s underwear, SANE evidence — established intentional touching and digital penetration. Accused either knew or was wilfully blind/reckless to lack of consent; self‑induced intoxication cannot justify an honest but mistaken belief. Therefore Crown proved actus reus and mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt and the accused is guilty of sexual assault.

Court Disposition

Guilty of sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code

Orders

  • Convicted of sexual assault contrary to s.271 Criminal Code
  • Publication ban ordered pursuant to ss.486.4 and 486.35 Criminal Code (no identifying information of complainant to be published)