R. v. Sansregret (1985), 58 N.R. 123 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
…………………….
R. v. Sansregret
Indexed As: R. v. Sansregret
Supreme Court of Canada
Dickson, C.J.C., Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain, JJ.
May 9, 1985.
Summary:
The accused was charged with rape by having sexual intercourse with a woman with consent extorted by threats or fear of bodily harm contrary to s. 143(b)(i) of the Criminal Code. The accused broke into the home of his former girlfriend and engaged in intercourse with her after terrorizing her into consent with a knife. The Manitoba County Court in a judgment reported 22 Man.R.(2d) 115; 34 C.R. (3d) 162, acquitted the accused on the ground that the accused honestly believed that the woman consented. The Crown appealed.
The Manitoba Court of Appeal in a judgment reported [1984] 1 W.W.R. 720; 25 Man.R.(2d) 123; 10 C.C.C.(3d) 164; 37 C.R.(3d) 45, allowed the appeal and convicted the accused of rape, disallowing the defence of mistake of fact. The accused appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The court held that the defence of mistake of fact was unavailable, because the accused was wilfully blind to the consequences of his threatening acts. The court held that the accused could not preserve his honest belief in her consent by wilful blindness.
Criminal Law – Topic 34
Mens rea – Recklessness – Distinguished from negligence – The Supreme Court of Canada distinguished between the civil law concept of negligence and the criminal law concept of recklessness as a part of mens rea – The court stated that negligence is tested by the objective standard of the reasonable man and cannot ground criminal responsibility – Recklessness as part of mens rea must be subjective and describes the conduct of one who sees a risk and takes a chance – See paragraph 16.
Criminal Law – Topic 34
Mens rea – Recklessness – Distinguished from wilful blindness – The Supreme Court of Canada distinguished between recklessness and wilful blindness – The court stated that the culpability in recklessness is justified by consciousness of the risk and by proceeding in the face of it, while in wilful blindness it is justified by the accused’s fault in deliberately failing to inquire when he knows there is reason for inquiring – See paragraphs 21 to 22.
Criminal Law – Topic 36.1
Mens rea – Mistake of fact – Wilful blindness – The Supreme Court of Canada held that, while an honest belief in a state of facts (such as consent of a rape victim) is a defence, an accused may not preserve honest belief by wilful blindness to facts (such as the consequence of threats), which might destroy honest belief.
Criminal Law – Topic 674
Sexual offences – Rape – Defences – Mistake of fact – Wilful blindness – The accused, a former boyfriend of the complainant, broke into the complainant’s home in the middle of the night armed with a butcher knife. The accused ordered the complainant to strip, then tied her hands and attempted to convince her they should reconcile – Out of fear and to calm him down the complainant appeared to relent and agreed to sexual intercourse – The accused knew that the complainant had previously complained to police about a similar occurrence – To a charge of rape he pleaded that he honestly believed that she consented – The Supreme Court of Canada convicted the accused and held that the defence of mistake of fact was inapplicable, because the accused was wilfully blind to the consequences of his threats in obtaining her consent – The court held that an accused cannot preserve honest belief by wilful blindness.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Pappajohn, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 120; 32 N.R. 104; 14 C.R.(3d) 243; 52 C.C.C.(2d) 481; 111 D.L.R.(3d) 1; [1980] 4 W.W.R. 387, consd. [para. 7].
D.P.P. v. Morgan, [1976] A.C. 182, consd. [para. 11].
Plummer and Brown v. R. (1976), 24 C.C.C.(2d) 497 (O.C.A.), consd. [para. 14].
R. v. Blondin (1971), 2 C.C.C.(2d) 118 (B.C.C.A.), affd. [1971] S.C.R. 2; 4 C.C.C.(2d) 566, consd. [para. 22].
Currie v. R. (1976), 24 C.C.C.(2d) 292 (O.C.A.), consd. [para. 22].
McFall v. R. (1976), 26 C.C.C.(2d) 181 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 22].
R. v. Aiello (1978), 38 C.C.C.(2d) 485 (O.C.A.), consd. [para. 22].
Roper v. Taylor’s Central Garages (Exeter) Ltd., [1951] 2 T.L.R. 284, consd. [para. 22].
Statutes Noticed:
Criminal Code of Canada R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 143(b)(i).
Authors and Works Noticed:
Stuart, Canadian Criminal Law (1982), p. 130 et seq. [para. 22].
Williams, Glanville, Criminal Law; The General Part (1961), pp. 157-160 [para. 22].
Counsel:
Richard Wolson, for the appellant;
Richard Rampersad, Q.C., for the respondent.
This case was heard on October 11, 1984, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Dickson, C.J.C., Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On May 9, 1985, McIntyre, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada:
