- Thread starter
- Staff
- #1
Dadparvar
Staff member
- Nov 11, 2016
- 10,333
- 0
- 6
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday that trial judges must consider all available evidence, not only a complainant’s testimony, when deciding whether a person had the capacity to consent to sexual activity. The decision in R. v. Rioux clarified how courts should assess capacity and consent in cases involving intoxication, memory loss, or fragmented recollection.
The case arose from sexual assault charges against a Quebec man, Mr. Rioux, involving a woman with whom he had a prior relationship. The complainant testified that after drinking alcohol at a picnic, she lost control of her body and could recall only fragments of what took place that night. She believed she might have been drugged. Mr. Rioux maintained that he believed she was capable of consenting and that she had done so voluntarily.
At trial, the judge acquitted Mr. Rioux, finding that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew the complainant lacked capacity to consent. The judge emphasized her limited memory and concluded that the accused may have honestly believed she was giving her consent. The Quebec Court of Appeal overturned the acquittal, finding that the trial judge had erred in law by treating the complainant’s limited recollection as the only relevant evidence and by failing to consider circumstantial evidence of incapacity, such as confusion, memory loss, or physical impairment.
Writing for the Supreme Court majority, Justice Sheilah Martin upheld the Court of Appeal’s ruling and dismissed the appeal. The Court held that the trial judge made two significant legal errors: first, by treating direct evidence of the complainant’s state of mind as a legal requirement for establishing incapacity, and second, by failing to recognize that circumstantial evidence can independently support findings about a complainant’s ability to consent. Justice Martin wrote that judges must “look at the full picture” when assessing whether a complainant had the mental and physical capacity to understand the sexual act, its nature, their partner’s identity, and their right to refuse.
The majority reiterated that under Canadian law, valid consent requires both voluntary agreement and the capacity to make that decision. Intoxication, unconsciousness, or any condition that prevents understanding of the act invalidates consent. Chief Justice Wagner and Justices Côté, Rowe, and Moreau dissented, saying they would have allowed the appeal.
The decision reinforces that a complainant’s partial memory or lack of recall does not prevent courts from finding incapacity to consent and that all relevant evidence must be considered. It also reflects a wider international effort to center sexual assault law on the concept of freely given agreement rather than on proof of physical resistance. In France, the Gisèle Pelicot case prompted national reflection on how the law defines rape and consent. Together, these developments signal a growing global movement toward legal standards that recognize autonomy and capacity as the foundation of consent.
The post Canada Supreme Court clarifies consent in sexual assault cases appeared first on JURIST - News.
Continue reading...
Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.
The case arose from sexual assault charges against a Quebec man, Mr. Rioux, involving a woman with whom he had a prior relationship. The complainant testified that after drinking alcohol at a picnic, she lost control of her body and could recall only fragments of what took place that night. She believed she might have been drugged. Mr. Rioux maintained that he believed she was capable of consenting and that she had done so voluntarily.
At trial, the judge acquitted Mr. Rioux, finding that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew the complainant lacked capacity to consent. The judge emphasized her limited memory and concluded that the accused may have honestly believed she was giving her consent. The Quebec Court of Appeal overturned the acquittal, finding that the trial judge had erred in law by treating the complainant’s limited recollection as the only relevant evidence and by failing to consider circumstantial evidence of incapacity, such as confusion, memory loss, or physical impairment.
Writing for the Supreme Court majority, Justice Sheilah Martin upheld the Court of Appeal’s ruling and dismissed the appeal. The Court held that the trial judge made two significant legal errors: first, by treating direct evidence of the complainant’s state of mind as a legal requirement for establishing incapacity, and second, by failing to recognize that circumstantial evidence can independently support findings about a complainant’s ability to consent. Justice Martin wrote that judges must “look at the full picture” when assessing whether a complainant had the mental and physical capacity to understand the sexual act, its nature, their partner’s identity, and their right to refuse.
The majority reiterated that under Canadian law, valid consent requires both voluntary agreement and the capacity to make that decision. Intoxication, unconsciousness, or any condition that prevents understanding of the act invalidates consent. Chief Justice Wagner and Justices Côté, Rowe, and Moreau dissented, saying they would have allowed the appeal.
The decision reinforces that a complainant’s partial memory or lack of recall does not prevent courts from finding incapacity to consent and that all relevant evidence must be considered. It also reflects a wider international effort to center sexual assault law on the concept of freely given agreement rather than on proof of physical resistance. In France, the Gisèle Pelicot case prompted national reflection on how the law defines rape and consent. Together, these developments signal a growing global movement toward legal standards that recognize autonomy and capacity as the foundation of consent.
The post Canada Supreme Court clarifies consent in sexual assault cases appeared first on JURIST - News.
Continue reading...
Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.