R. v. Percy

R. v. Percy

The court accepted the complainant’s clear, consistent evidence that she did not consent to anal intercourse in the bathroom and that she repeatedly said "no" while being forced; forensic and medical evidence (bite marks, bruising, anal and vaginal erythema, semen on bathroom floor) corroborated non‑consensual activity and injury; the accused took no reasonable steps to ascertain consent and his conduct evidenced control and force, so mens rea was established; bodily harm was proven; therefore the accused was convicted of sexual assault causing bodily harm as to the anal intercourse and subsequent vaginal intercourse in the shower, while reasonable doubt remained as to certain bedroom...

Citation
2020 NSSC 138
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Matthew Albert Percy; Complainant: B.W.
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Assault Causing Bodily Harm / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Convicted of sexual assault causing bodily harm (as to forced anal intercourse and subsequent vaginal intercourse in the shower)
Legal Topics
Consent, Mens Rea Honest But Mistaken Belief in Communicated Consent, Actus Reus, Bodily Harm, Credibility and Reliability, Circumstantial Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Evidence Consent Mens Rea Honest But Mistaken Belief in Communicated Consent Actus Reus Bodily Harm Credibility and Reliability +1 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 7 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Matthew Albert Percy

Accused

B.W.

Complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Assault Causing Bodily Harm / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether complainant consented to the sexual acts (especially anal intercourse and subsequent vaginal intercourse)
  2. 2 Whether accused had honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent or took reasonable steps to ascertain consent
  3. 3 Whether injuries constituted bodily harm

Ratio Decidendi

The court accepted the complainant’s clear, consistent evidence that she did not consent to anal intercourse in the bathroom and that she repeatedly said "no" while being forced; forensic and medical evidence (bite marks, bruising, anal and vaginal erythema, semen on bathroom floor) corroborated non‑consensual activity and injury; the accused took no reasonable steps to ascertain consent and his conduct evidenced control and force, so mens rea was established; bodily harm was proven; therefore the accused was convicted of sexual assault causing bodily harm as to the anal intercourse and subsequent vaginal intercourse in the shower, while reasonable doubt remained as to certain bedroom...

Court Disposition

Convicted of sexual assault causing bodily harm (as to forced anal intercourse and subsequent vaginal intercourse in the shower)

Orders

  • Found guilty of sexual assault causing bodily harm