A man who spontaneously told a police officer that a sexual assault victim “was asking for it” was convicted in Provincial Court of the 2022 crime in Sik E Dakh, formerly Glen Vowell.
“The absence of consent was clear, explicit and was disregarded,” said Judge David Patterson in his Jan. 16 decision.
The intermittent trial, held under a ban on publication of the victim’s identity, began in late 2023, ran until last October and culminated in the Hazelton court verdict last month.
The victim, who was in her mid-20s at the time of the incident, testified about a night of heavy drinking on July 5, 2022 that continued into the early hours of July 6, 2022 in Kispiox and Sik E Dakh.
The man led the victim outside of a house to a side stairwell and they engaged in holding hands and kissing, but the man forced her to have intercourse. She made it clear she wanted the man to stop, but he ignored her verbal protests.
“I am satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, that although she initially agreed to be with the defendant and engaged in some consensual kissing, the complainant did not consent to anal intercourse,” Patterson wrote. “The complainant explicitly and repeatedly withdrew any consent by crying, screaming ‘no,’ and begging the defendant to stop.”
Patterson wrote that the victim suffered “immediate emotional distress” and physical injuries that included bruising to her left buttock and pain in the rectum. DNA evidence strongly supported her testimony.
“The defendant's immediate response upon learning the reason for his arrest – ‘Oh my God. She was asking for it. This is [B.S.]’ – aligns with the defendant understanding that the complainant had not consented but believed she had somehow invited or deserved the assault,” Patterson wrote.
The man was acquitted of a second charge, breach of undertaking to not possess or consume any alcohol or drugs. The victim did not testify seeing him drink or use drugs, although there was alcohol where they socialized.
“The circumstantial evidence, though suggestive, does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant violated the condition of his undertaking,” Patterson wrote.
