R. v. D.L.

R. v. D.L.

Court found reasonable doubt on the essential element of complainant's lack of consent after assessing credibility of both witnesses; judge rejected accused's account as implausible and lacking evidence of affirmative communications of consent, and concluded statutory vitiators (force, threats, abuse of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2015 BCSC 2030
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: D.E.L.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal (sexual Assault) / Trial Judgment (reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Acquitted (not guilty on all counts)
Legal Topics
Sexual Assault, Consent, Honest But Mistaken Belief in Consent, Sexual Exploitation, Evidence and Credibility Assessment
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Sexual Assault Consent Honest But Mistaken Belief in Consent Sexual Exploitation Evidence and Credibility Assessment

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

D.E.L.

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (sexual Assault) / Trial Judgment (reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complainant consented to the sexual acts
  2. 2 Whether the accused honestly but mistakenly believed there was consent
  3. 3 Whether statutory provisions vitiating consent (force, authority, abuse of trust) applied

Ratio Decidendi

Court found reasonable doubt on the essential element of complainant's lack of consent after assessing credibility of both witnesses; judge rejected accused's account as implausible and lacking evidence of affirmative communications of consent, and concluded statutory vitiators (force, threats, abuse of authority/trust) were not established; therefore accused was acquitted.

Court Disposition

Acquitted (not guilty on all counts)

Orders

  • Accused acquitted of all charges
  • Publication ban pursuant to ss. 486.4(1) and 539(1) of the Criminal Code