Canada’s rape-shield law can’t be used to prevent an accused from mounting defence, Ont. court rules


    Canada’s so-called rape-shield law, which goals to shield sexual-assault complainants from unfair and irrelevant scrutiny of their intercourse lives, can’t be used to prevent an accused from mounting an affordable defence, Ontario’s high court dominated on Wednesday.

    Consequently, the court quashed the sexual-assault conviction of a person whose lawyer was barred from cross-examining a girl on her being pregnant and ordered a brand new trial.

    In its ruling, the court acknowledged the essential significance of defending complainants from questioning about their sexual exercise when that exercise doesn’t kind the subject material of the cost. 

    Amongst different issues, the court stated, the rule takes under consideration the privateness pursuits of a complainant and was prompted by considerations about deterring victims from going to police and about feeding rape myths.

    Instances when ‘questioning should be permitted’

    “However these highly effective concerns, there are occasions when such questioning should be permitted,” the Attraction Court stated. “That is a kind of circumstances the place a correct balancing … requires that such questioning be permitted.”

    The Crown’s place amounted to this: ‘We are saying you’re the just one who may have impregnated the complainant however you aren’t allowed to query her about whether or not that is true.’– Attraction Court

    In accordance to court paperwork, the accused, then 20 years outdated who can solely be recognized as R.V., was on a household tenting journey in July 2013 when his cousin, 15, stated he lured her to a washroom and  sexually assaulted her in a bathe stall. She then stated she blacked out. R.V. denied any sexual contact along with her.

    A key a part of the prosecution’s case was that the teenager’s subsequent being pregnant corroborated her allegations — that solely the accused may be the daddy. The younger girl subsequently terminated her being pregnant and the fetal stays have been destroyed, making it unimaginable to affirm paternity via DNA testing, court data present.

    The defence utilized in a pre-trial movement to cross-examine her on her different sexual exercise as a manner to try to refute the proposition that R.V. had impregnated her throughout the sexual assault. Nevertheless, the decide listening to the appliance refused to permit the cross-examination.

    ‘Patently unfair end result’

    In October 2016, Choose Robert Gee convicted R.V. after upholding the sooner ruling as binding on him.

    Each these choices have been in error, the Attraction Court stated. 

    Whereas the prosecution didn’t dispute the relevance of questioning the teenager about whether or not others may need made her
    pregnant, it argued the proposed defence questioning would have been extreme.

    “The Crown’s place amounted to this: ‘We are saying you’re the just one who may have impregnated the complainant however you aren’t allowed to query her about whether or not that is true’,” the Attraction Court stated. “It is a patently unfair end result that can’t be justified within the circumstances of this case.”

    The upper court stated the pre-trial decide was incorrect find that R.V.’s try to query the teenager amounted to a “fishing expedition” regardless of understanding precisely what the cross-examination would have entailed.

    ‘A considerable incorrect’

    “The urgency of vetting the Crown’s paternity allegation throughout trial was just too nice, and there was nothing within the
    circumstances of this case to diminish it,” the Attraction Court stated.

    “The unfairness to the administration of justice of allowing the cross-examination, though actual, was not intense sufficient to overcome that want.”

    The Attraction Court additionally rejected the prosecution’s argument that R.V.’s lawyer had however managed a stable defence by skirting the cross-examination ruling and asking the complainant about her virginity.

    Whereas the questions have been improper and mustn’t have been allowed, the ruling nonetheless prevented the defence from asking additional related questions, the court stated. 

    “What occurred was not a good substitute for the cross-examination that ought to have been allowed,” the Attraction Court
    stated. “A considerable incorrect or miscarriage of justice occurred.”



    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here

    four × two =