R. v. Bulmer

R. v. Bulmer

The Court held the evidence gave an air of reality to the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent and the defence should have been left to the jury; however the trial judge misdirected the jury by indicating the defence required objective or reasonable grounds as a precondition, and that misdirection warranted allowing the appeal and ordering a new trial.

Citation
[1987] 1 SCR 782
Parties
Appellant: Daniel Robert Laybourn; Appellant: Edwin Hanson Bulmer; Appellant: Richard Ray Illingworth; Respondent: Her Majesty The Queen
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 June 1987
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the British Columbia Court of Appeal (s.618(1)(a) Criminal Code)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; new trial ordered
Legal Topics
Rape, Indecent Assault, Mistake of Fact, Consent, Jury Charge, Mens Rea
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Rape Indecent Assault Mistake of Fact Consent Jury Charge Mens Rea

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Robert Laybourn

Appellant

Edwin Hanson Bulmer

Appellant

Richard Ray Illingworth

Appellant

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the British Columbia Court of Appeal (s.618(1)(a) Criminal Code)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent should have been left to the jury
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge correctly instructed the jury regarding the defence and whether his supplementary charge misdirected the jury by requiring reasonable or objective grounds for the defence

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the evidence gave an air of reality to the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent and the defence should have been left to the jury; however the trial judge misdirected the jury by indicating the defence required objective or reasonable grounds as a precondition, and that misdirection warranted allowing the appeal and ordering a new trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; new trial ordered

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and new trial ordered