R. v. Akumu

Parties

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Offences / Voir Dire (s.276 Application Hearing)

Legal Issues

1. 1 Whether s.276.1/276.2 procedures are mandatory where evidence is not tendered for a prohibited purpose
2. 2 Whether proposed questions/evidence meet s.276(2) requirements (specific instances, relevance, probative value not outweighed by prejudice)
3. 3 Admissibility of questions to complainant about injuries/DNA and about a prior conversation bearing on accused's mistaken belief as to age

Ratio Decidendi

The s.276.1/276.2 procedural requirements are mandatory for proceedings under s.276; prior sexual activity may be admissible only if it satisfies s.276(2)'s three-part test and the enumerated s.276(3) factors; applying that test the court allowed Boima two narrowly confined cross-examination questions about timing of self-examination/memory to address whether injuries/DNA could pre-date the incident, and allowed Akumu one limited question establishing that a conversation occurred in which the complainant said she was sleeping with a boy (admissible not for truth but to show what the accused knew and relevant to mistaken belief as to age), and ordered appropriate jury instructions under...

Court Disposition

s.276 applications allowed in part

Orders

• Application of Mr. Boima allowed to the extent that the complainant may be asked two cross-examination questions: (1) when was the last time you examined yourself prior to the incident? and (2) you have no memory of any event in the previous two to three days that could have caused those injuries?
• Application of Ms. Akumu allowed to the extent that the complainant may be asked whether, when hanging out with Ms. Akumu, she had a discussion about a boy she was having sex with (limited to establishing that the conversation occurred, not for its truth)