The Mistake of Age Defence

If an accused person is charged with certain Criminal Code sexual offences (such as an offence pursuant to section 151 (sexual interference) or section 271(1)  (sexual assault)) involving a complainant under the age of sixteen, “it is not a defence that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject matter of the charge.”

See  section 150.1(1) of the Criminal Code.


It is, however, a defence if the accused honestly believed that the complainant was sixteen years of age or older at the time the sexual activity occurred (the “mistake of age defence”).  But, the mistake of age defence is subject to section 150.1(4) of the Criminal Code,  which indicates that it is not defence that the accused person “believed that the complainant was 16 years of age or more at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the complainant.”  

The accused must point to some evidence that he or she honestly believed the complainant was 16 years or more and that he or she took all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant’s age. If the accused meets this evidentiary burden, the Crown is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did not have the requisite belief or that he or she failed to take all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant’s age.

R. v. L.T.P. (1997), 1997 CanLII 12464 (BC CA), 113 C.C.C. (3d) 42 (B.C.C.A.), at paras. 16-19; R. v. Osborne (1992), 1992 CanLII 7117 (NL CA), 102 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 194 (Nfld. C.A.), at paras. 47-49 and 61.

Reasonable steps                There is no automatic checklist of considerations applicable to every case, that what constitutes all reasonable steps depends on the context and the circumstances,

R. v. Duran, 2013 ONCA 343 (CanLII), 306 O.A.C. 301, at para. 54.

Sometimes a visual observation alone may suffice.  Whether further steps would be reasonable would depend upon the apparent indicia of the complainant’s age, and the accused’s knowledge of same, including: the information the complainant told the appellant about herself, including any information about her age; the accused’s knowledge of the complainant’s physical appearance and behaviour; the age differential between the appellant and the complainant; the ages and appearance of others in whose company the complainant is found; the activities engaged in either by the complainant individually, or as part of a group; and the times, places, and other circumstances in which the complainant and her conduct are observed by the accused. Evidence as to the accused’s subjective state of mind is relevant but not conclusive because an accused may believe that he or she has taken all reasonable steps only to find that the trial judge or jury may find differently.

R. v. L.T.P. (1997), 1997 CanLII 12464 (BC CA), 113 C.C.C. (3d) 42 (B.C.C.A.) at para  20; R. v. Duran, 2013 ONCA 343 (CanLII), 306 O.A.C. 301.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Warrantless Drug Searches (Section 11(7) of the CDSA)

Were there exigent circumstances? Did the exigent circumstances render it impracticable to obtain a warrant? Section 11(7)   of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act states: (7) A peace officer may exercise any of the powers described in subsection (1), (5) or (6) without a warrant if the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist but by reason of exigent circumstances it would be impracticable to obtain one. Subsection (1)   of s. 11 empowers a peace officer to conduct a warranted search of a place for, inter alia , a controlled substance and to seize it. Section 11(7), therefore, empowers a peace officer to conduct a warrantless search for a controlled substance, so long as conditions for obtaining a warrant existed and exigent circumstances made it impracticable for the officer to obtain a warrant. For a warrantless entry into a residence to satisfy section 11(7) , the Crown must show that the entry was compelled by urgency, calling for immediate police action to prese
Read more

Arrested at Home: Feeney Warrants

At common law, where the police had reasonable grounds to arrest a suspect and reasonable grounds to believe a suspect was in a private dwelling-house, they were entitled to enter and arrest the suspect, with or without an arrest warrant, if proper announcement was made. See R. v. Landry , 1986 CanLII 48 (SCC), [1986] 1 S.C.R. 145 , and Eccles v. Bourque et al. , 1974 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739 ). However, in the 1997 decision of R. v. Feeney , the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the common law violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that generally, warrantless arrests within private dwellings were prohibited.  Absent exigent circumstances or cases of hot pursuit, an entry warrant would be required to enter a dwelling house to make an arrest.    R. v. Feeney , 1997 CanLII 342 (SCC), at paras. 44-51.  Parliament responded by enacting sections 529-529.5 of the Criminal Code , which, among other things, creates two distinct authorizatio
Read more

Night time Execution of a Search Warrant

Warrants Authorized under the Criminal Code The Criminal Code requires that if a warrant is to be executed at night (after 9:00 p.m., see Criminal Code , s. 2), the night time execution must be justified under the terms of s. 488 of the Criminal Code .    Section 488 of the Criminal Code is not made applicable to warrants and telewarrants issued under the authority of section 11 of the CDSA, which may be executed “at any time”.  R. v. Shivrattan, 2017 ONCA 23; R. v. Saunders , 2003 NLCA 63, 181 C.C.C. (3d) 268, at paras. 27, 31-32, affirmed on other grounds, 2004 SCC 70, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 505; R. v. Dueck , 2005 BCCA 448, 200 C.C.C. (3d) 378, at paras. 17-21; and R. v. Newell , [2007] O.J. No. 2348, at para. 47 (Ont. S.C.). Warrants Authorized under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Unlike warrants issued under the Criminal Code , there is no statutory presumption that warrants issued under s. 11 of the CDSA are to be executed before 9:00 p.m. unless night t
Read more