R. v. Budrow

R. v. Budrow

Judge accepted complainant's evidence of non-consent, found no air of reality to an honest but mistaken belief in consent, and concluded on the whole of the evidence that the accused intended the touching and knew or was reckless or wilfully blind to the lack of consent for the two sexual assaults; evidence was insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused administered a stupefying substance, so that count was dismissed.

Citation
2002 BCSC 17
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: James Louis Budrow; Complainant: L.A.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Judgment on Guilt (oral Reasons)
Outcome
Convicted on Counts 1 and 2 (sexual assault); Count 3 (administration of a stupefying or overpowering substance) dismissed.
Legal Topics
Sexual Assault, Consent, Honest But Mistaken Belief of Consent, Administration of Stupefying Substance, Mens Rea, Actus Reus
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Sexual Assault Consent Honest But Mistaken Belief of Consent Administration of Stupefying Substance Mens Rea Actus Reus

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

James Louis Budrow

Accused

L.A.

Complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Judgment on Guilt (oral Reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complainant consented to the sexual contact
  2. 2 Whether the accused had an honest but mistaken belief in consent (air of reality to defence)
  3. 3 Whether the accused administered a stupefying or overpowering substance contrary to s.246(b)

Ratio Decidendi

Judge accepted complainant's evidence of non-consent, found no air of reality to an honest but mistaken belief in consent, and concluded on the whole of the evidence that the accused intended the touching and knew or was reckless or wilfully blind to the lack of consent for the two sexual assaults; evidence was insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused administered a stupefying substance, so that count was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Convicted on Counts 1 and 2 (sexual assault); Count 3 (administration of a stupefying or overpowering substance) dismissed.

Orders

  • Counts 1 and 2: guilty (sexual assault)
  • Count 3 dismissed (insufficient evidence to link substance to blanket)