R. v. England

R. v. England

On Count 1 the Crown failed to prove lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt because competing testimony and a contemporaneous text raised reasonable doubt; on Counts 2 and 3 the Crown proved the accused's presence, non‑consensual sexual acts and threats beyond a reasonable doubt based on admissions, DNA matching,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2021 BCSC 2585
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Troy Lee England; Complainant: S.J.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Not guilty on Count 1; Guilty on Counts 2 and 3.
Legal Topics
Sexual Assault, Break and Enter, Uttering Threats, Consent, Intoxication Defence, Publication Ban, Section 33.1 Constitutionality, DNA Evidence, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Evidence Forensic Toxicology Constitutional Law Sexual Assault Break and Enter Uttering Threats +6 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Troy Lee England

Accused

S.J.

Complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether complainant consented to sexual activity on November 20, 2018 (Count 1)
  2. 2 Whether accused broke and entered complainant's residence and sexually assaulted her on January 12, 2019 (Count 2)
  3. 3 Whether accused uttered threats to kill complainant on January 12, 2019 (Count 3)

Ratio Decidendi

On Count 1 the Crown failed to prove lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt because competing testimony and a contemporaneous text raised reasonable doubt; on Counts 2 and 3 the Crown proved the accused's presence, non‑consensual sexual acts and threats beyond a reasonable doubt based on admissions, DNA matching, medical injuries, contemporaneous messaging/calls and corroborating witness evidence; the extreme intoxication/automatism defence lacked an air of reality because evidence was generalized, psychiatric opinion was absent, and the accused exhibited purposeful acts (coherent messaging, navigating, removing screen, entering window), so voluntariness was not rebutted.

Court Disposition

Not guilty on Count 1; Guilty on Counts 2 and 3.

Orders

  • Convicted on Counts 2 (break and enter and commit sexual assault) and 3 (uttering threats)
  • Indefinite publication ban under s.486.4(1) of the Criminal Code restricting publication that could identify the complainant