R. v. S.W.

R. v. S.W.

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not subjectively consent at the precise moment of intercourse because the complainant's testimony was rendered insufficiently reliable by intoxication and material inconsistencies, so the accused must be acquitted.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2020 NSSC 349
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: S.W.
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Assault / Trial Decision
Outcome
Not guilty (acquitted)
Legal Topics
Consent, Subjective Consent, Honest But Mistaken Belief in Communicated Consent, Credibility and Assessment of Evidence, Standard of Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, Admissibility of Prior Sexual Activity
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Evidence Procedure Consent Subjective Consent Honest But Mistaken Belief in Communicated Consent Credibility and Assessment of Evidence +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

S.W.

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Assault / Trial Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complainant subjectively consented to vaginal intercourse on September 23, 2017
  2. 2 Whether the Crown proved absence of consent beyond a reasonable doubt
  3. 3 Whether the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent applied

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not subjectively consent at the precise moment of intercourse because the complainant's testimony was rendered insufficiently reliable by intoxication and material inconsistencies, so the accused must be acquitted.

Court Disposition

Not guilty (acquitted)

Orders

  • Accused acquitted (found not guilty).
  • Publication ban ordered under Criminal Code s. 486.4 and s. 539.1.