R. v. Thompson

R. v. Thompson

The Crown proved non-disclosure (dishonesty) and a prima facie deprivation; however, on the facts found (condom used and no ejaculation with H.R.H.; no condom but reasonable doubt about ejaculation and possibility treatment resumed for M.A.M.) and on accepted expert evidence that viral load <1500 or condom use precludes a realistic possibility of transmission, the defence raised a reasonable doubt as to realistic possibility of transmission for both complainants; accordingly acquitted of aggravated sexual assault but convicted of the included offence sexual assault causing bodily harm based on established psychological harm from fear of HIV infection.

Citation
2016 NSSC 134
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Claude Allan Thompson
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Aggravated Sexual Assault / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Accused acquitted of aggravated sexual assault charges; convicted of included offences of sexual assault causing bodily harm for both complainants
Legal Topics
Aggravated Sexual Assault, Failure to Disclose HIV Status, Realistic Possibility of Transmission (mabior), Credibility Assessment, Medical Expert Evidence, Included Offence: Sexual Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Consent Vitiation, Dishonesty/fraud
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Evidence Health Law Aggravated Sexual Assault Failure to Disclose HIV Status Realistic Possibility of Transmission (mabior) Credibility Assessment +4 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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Claude Allan Thompson

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Aggravated Sexual Assault / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to disclose HIV status constituted fraud vitiating consent
  2. 2 Whether there was a realistic possibility of HIV transmission under R. v. Mabior
  3. 3 Whether defence evidence (viral load, condom use, ejaculation) raised a reasonable doubt

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown proved non-disclosure (dishonesty) and a prima facie deprivation; however, on the facts found (condom used and no ejaculation with H.R.H.; no condom but reasonable doubt about ejaculation and possibility treatment resumed for M.A.M.) and on accepted expert evidence that viral load <1500 or condom use precludes a realistic possibility of transmission, the defence raised a reasonable doubt as to realistic possibility of transmission for both complainants; accordingly acquitted of aggravated sexual assault but convicted of the included offence sexual assault causing bodily harm based on established psychological harm from fear of HIV infection.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted of aggravated sexual assault charges; convicted of included offences of sexual assault causing bodily harm for both complainants

Orders

  • Not guilty of aggravated sexual assault regarding H.R.H.
  • Not guilty of aggravated sexual assault regarding M.A.M.