R v. S. L.

R v. S. L.

On the whole of the evidence the court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent to the sexual touching (oral incident) and lacked capacity to consent to the bedroom/anal incident due to intoxication; the accused either knew or was reckless/wilfully blind to the lack of consent, his statement was rejected under the W.(D.) analysis, and therefore he was guilty of sexual assault contrary to s.271.

Citation
2020 NSSC 95
Parties
Crown/prosecution: Her Majesty The Queen; Accused/defendant: S. L.; Complainant: P. C.
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Assault / Trial Judgment (guilt)
Outcome
Guilty: convicted of sexual assault contrary to s.271 of the Criminal Code
Legal Topics
Sexual Assault S.271, Meaning of Consent S.273.1, Honest But Mistaken Belief S.273.2, Capacity to Consent (intoxication), W.(d.) Credibility Assessment, Publication Ban S.486.4
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Evidence Sexual Assault S.271 Meaning of Consent S.273.1 Honest But Mistaken Belief S.273.2 Capacity to Consent (intoxication) W.(d.) Credibility Assessment +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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen

Crown/prosecution

S. L.

Accused/defendant

P. C.

Complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Assault / Trial Judgment (guilt)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complainant consented to the sexual activity
  2. 2 Whether the complainant had capacity to consent due to intoxication
  3. 3 Whether the accused had the requisite mens rea (knew of or was reckless/wilfully blind to lack of consent)

Ratio Decidendi

On the whole of the evidence the court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent to the sexual touching (oral incident) and lacked capacity to consent to the bedroom/anal incident due to intoxication; the accused either knew or was reckless/wilfully blind to the lack of consent, his statement was rejected under the W.(D.) analysis, and therefore he was guilty of sexual assault contrary to s.271.

Court Disposition

Guilty: convicted of sexual assault contrary to s.271 of the Criminal Code

Orders

  • Publication ban under s.486.4 of the Criminal Code (restriction on publication identifying the complainant or witnesses)