R. v. Seagull

R. v. Seagull

On the evidence the Crown proved that the accused occupied a position of trust or authority and that the twins were in relationships of dependency by reason of age difference, economic vulnerability, employment, mentorship and dominant male presence; the accused was guilty under s.153 for sexual touching of each twin (Counts 4 and 6) and guilty of sexual assault of S. for the first van incident (Count 5), while reasonable doubt existed as to sexual touching before age 14 for S. generally (Count 2) and as to the cabin/hotel incidents with E. (Count 3); Count 1 was stayed by the Crown.

Citation
2013 BCSC 1106
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused/defendant: Jonathan Livingstone Seagull
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Judgment After Trial (oral Reasons)
Outcome
Count 1 stayed; not guilty on Counts 2 and 3; guilty on Counts 4, 5 and 6
Legal Topics
Position of Trust, Consent, Age of Consent, Multi Count Indictment Principles, Credibility Assessment, W.(d.) Instruction, Section 153 Criminal Code
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Evidence Position of Trust Consent Age of Consent Multi Count Indictment Principles Credibility Assessment +2 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Jonathan Livingstone Seagull

Accused/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Judgment After Trial (oral Reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused was in a position of trust or authority or in a relationship of dependency with the complainants under s.153 Criminal Code
  2. 2 Whether the sexual activity alleged involved persons under 14 years of age
  3. 3 Whether the Crown proved sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt (consent and capacity issues including intoxication)

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the Crown proved that the accused occupied a position of trust or authority and that the twins were in relationships of dependency by reason of age difference, economic vulnerability, employment, mentorship and dominant male presence; the accused was guilty under s.153 for sexual touching of each twin (Counts 4 and 6) and guilty of sexual assault of S. for the first van incident (Count 5), while reasonable doubt existed as to sexual touching before age 14 for S. generally (Count 2) and as to the cabin/hotel incidents with E. (Count 3); Count 1 was stayed by the Crown.

Court Disposition

Count 1 stayed; not guilty on Counts 2 and 3; guilty on Counts 4, 5 and 6

Orders

  • Stay of proceedings on Count 1 (sexual touching of E. under 14)
  • Acquittal on Count 2 (sexual touching of S. under 14)