R. v. Park

R. v. Park

The trial judge did not err in refusing to put the honest but mistaken belief in consent defence because the totality of the evidence could not realistically support a belief that the complainant in fact consented; the air of reality test is a legal threshold under s.265(4) and demands more than a bare assertion,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1995] 2 SCR 836
Parties
Appellant (crown): Her Majesty the Queen; Respondent: Darryl Gordon Park
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 June 1995
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Alberta Court of Appeal
Outcome
Crown appeal allowed; conviction restored.
Legal Topics
Mistake of Fact, Consent, Air of Reality Test, Mens Rea, Admissibility of Prior Sexual Activity
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Sexual Assault Evidence Mistake of Fact Consent Air of Reality Test Mens Rea Admissibility of Prior Sexual Activity

Source-derived case record

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Appellant (crown)

Darryl Gordon Park

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Alberta Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent had an "air of reality"
  2. 2 Nature and proper application of the "air of reality" threshold under s.265(4) Criminal Code
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to put the mistake of fact defence to the jury

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge did not err in refusing to put the honest but mistaken belief in consent defence because the totality of the evidence could not realistically support a belief that the complainant in fact consented; the air of reality test is a legal threshold under s.265(4) and demands more than a bare assertion, and prior conduct cited did not relate sufficiently to the events at the time to support the defence.

Court Disposition

Crown appeal allowed; conviction restored.

Orders

  • Crown appeal allowed
  • Conviction of the respondent restored