R. v. Hawkes

R. v. Hawkes

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that sexual activity of the nature alleged occurred without consent because the complainant’s testimony was rendered insufficiently reliable by severe intoxication, significant inconsistencies with other Crown witnesses (notably Mr. A and Mr. B), the passage of time and the risk of reconstructed or imagination-inflated memory explained by admissible expert evidence; accordingly the accused was acquitted of both charges.

Citation
2017 NSPC 4
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Brent Leroy Hawkes
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Offences / Trial Judgment (acquittal)
Outcome
Accused found not guilty of indecent assault (s.156) and not guilty of gross indecency (s.157).
Legal Topics
Indecent Assault, Gross Indecency, Credibility and Reliability of Witnesses, Imagination Inflation and Reconstructed Memory, Burden of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt, Admissibility of Expert Opinion (mohan)
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Evidence Expert Evidence on Memory Publication Ban Indecent Assault Gross Indecency Credibility and Reliability of Witnesses +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Brent Leroy Hawkes

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Offences / Trial Judgment (acquittal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused committed indecent assault or an act of gross indecency under Criminal Code ss.156 and 157
  2. 2 Whether the Crown proved absence of consent beyond a reasonable doubt
  3. 3 Reliability and credibility of complainant and other Crown witnesses in the context of intoxication and remote events

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that sexual activity of the nature alleged occurred without consent because the complainant’s testimony was rendered insufficiently reliable by severe intoxication, significant inconsistencies with other Crown witnesses (notably Mr. A and Mr. B), the passage of time and the risk of reconstructed or imagination-inflated memory explained by admissible expert evidence; accordingly the accused was acquitted of both charges.

Court Disposition

Accused found not guilty of indecent assault (s.156) and not guilty of gross indecency (s.157).

Orders

  • Publication ban under Criminal Code s.486.4(1) prohibiting publication of the complainant’s and witnesses’ names
  • Decision revised by erratum dated March 30, 2017 (added co-counsel name)