The defence had video recordings of the women verbally consenting
I haven’t followed this casenor seen the evidence that was provided by either the Crown or the Defence. However, the Supreme Court confirmed in R. v. J.A., 2011 SCC 28 (CanLII), [2011] 2 SCR 440 that consent for sexual activity requires ongoing consent.
[65] In the end, we are left with this. Parliament has defined sexual assault as sexual touching without consent. It has dealt with consent in a way that makes it clear that ongoing, conscious and present consent to “the sexual activity in question” is required. This concept of consent produces just results in the vast majority of cases. It has proved of great value in combating the stereotypes that historically have surrounded consent to sexual relations and undermined the law’s ability to address the crime of sexual assault. In some situations, the concept of consent Parliament has adopted may seem unrealistic. However, it is inappropriate for this Court to carve out exceptions when they undermine Parliament’s choice. In the absence of a constitutional challenge, the appropriate body to alter the law on consent in relation to sexual assault is Parliament, should it deem this necessary.
The victim may have consented at first however if consent was revoked during sexual activity then it becomes sexual assault.
Definitely! That’s why I said it’s possible non-consenting stuff took place after the video ends. It’s entirely possible, but people don’t go to jail because it’s possible they committed a crime.
I also don’t believe that the Crown even argued that consent was revoked. I believe their argument was she was too drunk to consent so what she said in the video doesn’t matter. Again, possible, but they couldn’t prove that beyond a doubt.
I haven’t followed this casenor seen the evidence that was provided by either the Crown or the Defence. However, the Supreme Court confirmed in R. v. J.A., 2011 SCC 28 (CanLII), [2011] 2 SCR 440 that consent for sexual activity requires ongoing consent.
The victim may have consented at first however if consent was revoked during sexual activity then it becomes sexual assault.
Definitely! That’s why I said it’s possible non-consenting stuff took place after the video ends. It’s entirely possible, but people don’t go to jail because it’s possible they committed a crime.
I also don’t believe that the Crown even argued that consent was revoked. I believe their argument was she was too drunk to consent so what she said in the video doesn’t matter. Again, possible, but they couldn’t prove that beyond a doubt.