Sansregret v. The Queen

Listen to Podcast
Case Brief
Facts

The appellant, Sansregret, was charged with rape under s. 143(b)(i) of the Criminal Code for having intercourse with the complainant, whose consent was allegedly extorted by threats or fear of bodily harm. The complainant had previously lived with the appellant, and after their relationship ended, the appellant broke into her house twice. On both occasions, the complainant feared for her safety due to the appellant's threats and violent behavior. To calm him and protect herself, she held out hope of reconciliation and consented to intercourse. The trial judge acquitted Sansregret, finding that the complainant consented only out of fear but that Sansregret honestly believed the consent was freely given. The Court of Appeal overturned the acquittal and entered a conviction for rape.

Issues

Is the defense of mistake of fact available to the accused when the complainant consents to intercourse due to fear induced by the accused's threats, and the accused claims to honestly believe the consent was freely given?

Legal Analysis

The court analyzed the mens rea requirement for rape under s. 143(b)(i) of the Criminal Code, stating that it requires knowledge that the woman is consenting due to threats or fear, or recklessness as to its nature. An honest belief that the consent was freely and voluntarily given would negate the mens rea. However, the court found that the defense of mistake of fact was not available in this case because the trial judge found that Sansregret blinded himself to the obvious nature of the consent. The evidence showed that Sansregret was aware of the likelihood of the complainant consenting out of fear due to the first incident. Proceeding with intercourse without further inquiry in such circumstances constitutes willful blindness, which the law equates to knowledge of the forced nature of the consent.

Decision

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, upholding the Court of Appeal's decision to set aside the acquittal and enter a conviction for rape. The Court reasoned that because Sansregret was wilfully blind to the forced nature of the complainant's consent, the law presumes knowledge, and therefore the defense of mistake of fact was not applicable.

Transcript
Welcome back to Casepod, legal eagles! Today, we're diving into a case that really gets to the heart of consent, threats, and how the law interprets a blurry situation: *R. v. Sansregret*. So, picture this: a woman, let's call her Sarah, has broken up with her boyfriend, Mark. Mark doesn't take it well. He breaks into her house...twice. Now, Sarah is understandably terrified. During these break-ins, Mark makes threats. To defuse the situation and honestly, to protect herself, Sarah holds out hope of reconciliation. She consents to intercourse, but it's clearly born out of fear. Mark is charged with rape. The trial judge actually acquits him, saying Sarah consented, albeit out of fear, but Mark *believed* it was genuine. Sounds crazy, right? Well, the Court of Appeal thought so too and overturned the acquittal. That's what brings us to the Supreme Court of Canada. The big question here is: can Mark really claim he didn't know Sarah was consenting out of fear, when *he's* the one who created that fear? Is "ignorance" a valid defense in this situation? The court dug deep into what's required to prove rape. It all boils down to *mens rea* - the guilty mind. To be guilty, Mark had to know Sarah was consenting because of threats or fear, or at least be reckless about it. An honest belief that consent was freely given would normally negate the mens rea. However, here's the kicker: The court didn't buy Mark's "honest belief" defense. They found he was willfully blind. Think of it like this: the red flags were waving, the alarm bells were ringing, but he chose to ignore them. The evidence showed that after the first break-in, Mark knew there was a strong likelihood that Sarah was consenting out of fear. Proceeding without even asking? The court said that's willful blindness, and legally, that's the same as knowing the consent was forced. It's like sticking your head in the sand to avoid the truth. Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal. They dismissed Mark's appeal, upholding the rape conviction. The court's reasoning is crucial: because Mark was willfully blind to the forced nature of Sarah's consent, the law treats him as if he knew. He can't hide behind a claim of "I didn't know" when he deliberately avoided knowing. This case is so important because it highlights the court's unwillingness to let accused individuals off the hook when they deliberately ignore obvious signs of non-consent. It sends a strong message that you can't create a situation of fear and then claim ignorance when someone consents as a result. It's about accountability, and it's about protecting vulnerable individuals from exploitation. That's *R. v. Sansregret* in a nutshell. A stark reminder that consent must be freely and voluntarily given, and willful blindness is no defense. Join us next time on Casepod for another deep dive into the legal landscape!