R. v. Harry

R. v. Harry

The accused's mistaken‑age defence lacked an air of reality because he took no reasonable steps and exhibited reckless indifference to the complainant's age; s.150.1 blocks consent/mistake defences for under‑16 in sexual assault, leading to convictions for sexual interference and related counts, and the Crown proved dangerous driving and flight from police beyond a reasonable doubt; Count 3 (sexual assault) is stayed under Kienapple due to same acts as Counts 1 and 2.

Citation
2022 BCSC 2407
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Accused: Lance Jordan Harry; Complainant: Complainant
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Judgment (conviction)
Outcome
Guilty on Counts 1, 2, 4 and 5; Count 3 (sexual assault) stayed under Kienapple
Legal Topics
Sexual Interference, Mistake of Age Defence, Sexual Assault, Dangerous Driving, Flight From Police, Kienapple Stay
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Road Traffic Offences Sexual Interference Mistake of Age Defence Sexual Assault Dangerous Driving Flight From Police +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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Lance Jordan Harry

Accused

Complainant

Complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Judgment (conviction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age under s.150.1(4) (mistake of age defence)
  2. 2 Whether s.150.1 bars consent or mistake defences to sexual assault of a complainant under 16
  3. 3 Whether elements of sexual assault were established (touching of sexual nature and absence of consent)

Ratio Decidendi

The accused's mistaken‑age defence lacked an air of reality because he took no reasonable steps and exhibited reckless indifference to the complainant's age; s.150.1 blocks consent/mistake defences for under‑16 in sexual assault, leading to convictions for sexual interference and related counts, and the Crown proved dangerous driving and flight from police beyond a reasonable doubt; Count 3 (sexual assault) is stayed under Kienapple due to same acts as Counts 1 and 2.

Court Disposition

Guilty on Counts 1, 2, 4 and 5; Count 3 (sexual assault) stayed under Kienapple

Orders

  • Found guilty of Count 1: touching for a sexual purpose contrary to s.151 Criminal Code
  • Found guilty of Count 2: inviting/counselling/inciting to touch contrary to s.152 Criminal Code