R. v. Andrews

R. v. Andrews

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed sexual assault; the complainant did not consent, the conditional threesome offer was a tactic to rebuff advances and did not constitute consent, the accused's claimed honest but mistaken belief defence was rejected as unreasonable and the accused was reckless or wilfully blind to consent, and the complainant's failure to visually identify the accused in court did not undermine identity evidence such as voice recognition and the witness identification by Mr. McInnis.

Citation
2019 NSPC 86
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Adrian Andrews
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Assault / Trial Decision (guilty Verdict)
Outcome
Guilty of sexual assault contrary to s.271 of the Criminal Code
Legal Topics
Sexual Assault, Consent, Honest But Mistaken Belief, Identification, Forensic Evidence, Publication Restriction
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Evidence Law Sexual Assault Consent Honest But Mistaken Belief Identification Forensic Evidence +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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Adrian Andrews

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Assault / Trial Decision (guilty Verdict)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused can rely on an honest but mistaken belief in consent based on the complainant's conditional offer of a threesome that did not materialize
  2. 2 Effect of the complainant's inability to visually identify the accused in court on the Crown's proof of identity
  3. 3 Whether the complainant had a conscious operating mind and thus could consent

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed sexual assault; the complainant did not consent, the conditional threesome offer was a tactic to rebuff advances and did not constitute consent, the accused's claimed honest but mistaken belief defence was rejected as unreasonable and the accused was reckless or wilfully blind to consent, and the complainant's failure to visually identify the accused in court did not undermine identity evidence such as voice recognition and the witness identification by Mr. McInnis.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Convicted of sexual assault contrary to s.271 Criminal Code
  • Publication ban imposed under Criminal Code s.486.4(1) preventing publication of information that could identify the complainant