R. v. Percy

R. v. Percy

The accused was guilty because objective video evidence established that the complainant was unconscious for approximately 1.5–2 minutes during which she could not consent, the accused knew or was willfully blind to her unconscious state and took no reasonable steps to ascertain consent, and he made surreptitious sexual recordings of her without her knowledge.

Citation
2018 NSPC 57
Parties
Crown: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN; Accused: MATTHEW ALBERT PERCY
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Decision
Outcome
Accused found guilty of sexual assault contrary to s.271 of the Criminal Code and voyeurism contrary to s.162(1)(c) of the Criminal Code
Legal Topics
Sexual Assault, Consent, Capacity to Consent, Intoxication, Voyeurism, Mistake of Fact (honest Belief), Surreptitious Recording, Reasonable Doubt
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Sexual Offences Privacy Law Sexual Assault Consent Capacity to Consent Intoxication +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 7 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Crown

MATTHEW ALBERT PERCY

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complainant consented to the sexual activity
  2. 2 Whether the complainant had capacity to consent given intoxication/medication
  3. 3 Whether the accused knew or was reckless or willfully blind to lack of consent or capacity

Ratio Decidendi

The accused was guilty because objective video evidence established that the complainant was unconscious for approximately 1.5–2 minutes during which she could not consent, the accused knew or was willfully blind to her unconscious state and took no reasonable steps to ascertain consent, and he made surreptitious sexual recordings of her without her knowledge.

Court Disposition

Accused found guilty of sexual assault contrary to s.271 of the Criminal Code and voyeurism contrary to s.162(1)(c) of the Criminal Code

Orders

  • Convicted of sexual assault (s.271) and voyeurism (s.162(1)(c))
  • Publication ban protecting complainant identity under s.486.4 Criminal Code remains in force