R. v. Law

R. v. Law

The judge accepted the complainant's consistent account and rejected the accused's limited medical-purpose explanation; the repeated intrusive touching of the complainant's genital area satisfied the objective sexual-nature test and justified inferring a sexual purpose, proving sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt; sexual interference was proven but stayed under the Keinapple principle.

Citation
2007 BCSC 2047
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Dwain Antony Law
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Offences / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Guilty on Count 1 (sexual assault under s.271); Count 2 (sexual interference) proven but stayed under the Keinapple principle; Count 3 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Sexual Assault, Sexual Interference, Touching for a Sexual Purpose, Credibility, Keinapple Principle, Publication Ban
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Evidence Sexual Assault Sexual Interference Touching for a Sexual Purpose Credibility Keinapple Principle +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Dwain Antony Law

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Offences / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused's conduct constitutes sexual assault under s.271(1) Criminal Code
  2. 2 Whether the accused touched the complainant for a sexual purpose under s.151 Criminal Code
  3. 3 Application of the Keinapple principle to multiple charges arising from same acts

Ratio Decidendi

The judge accepted the complainant's consistent account and rejected the accused's limited medical-purpose explanation; the repeated intrusive touching of the complainant's genital area satisfied the objective sexual-nature test and justified inferring a sexual purpose, proving sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt; sexual interference was proven but stayed under the Keinapple principle.

Court Disposition

Guilty on Count 1 (sexual assault under s.271); Count 2 (sexual interference) proven but stayed under the Keinapple principle; Count 3 dismissed.

Orders

  • Convicted on Count 1 (sexual assault under s.271)
  • Count 2 (sexual interference) proven but stayed under the Keinapple principle