SELECTED CASE LAW
In 2012 BCCA 198, Mr. R appealed his conviction of sexual assault, arguing the trial judge had looked at evidence improperly when she made her decision to convict Mr. R.
Mr. R was a doctor in the small-town Mr. K, a 16-year-old boy, lived in. Mr. K was an avid mountain biker and was often injured and would see Mr. R for medical help. Mr. R would treat the boy and give him massages, occasionally grazing his penis and massaging his buttocks. Mr. K said those massages did not seem sexual. Mr. K would also talk to Mr. R about his personal problems.
Mr. R performed fellatio on Mr. K after treating the young man for injuries one evening and Mr. K asked why he was doing that. Mr. R then drove him home and Mr. K told his mother what happened and they reported it to the police. Mr. R claimed Mr. K had been speaking to him about being bisexual and had gotten an erection he was embarrassed about but that nothing sexual happened. Mr. R was charged with sexual exploitation and sexual assault on that night and on previous occasions. There was not sufficient evidence for the previous assaults and Mr. R was acquitted of those charges.
There were some inconsistencies in both Mr. K and Mr. R’s statements and evidence. However, the trial judge did not believe Mr. R’s
statements. The police obtained authorization and consent from Mr. K to record three telephone calls between him and Mr. R. On the calls Mr. R made statements that suggested he had sexually assaulted Mr. K. At trial, Mr. R was convicted of sexual assault and sexual exploitation.
The Court of Appeal, did not find that trial judge made a mistake that would have changed Mr. R’s conviction.
Also see:  SCCA No 307 (Leave to appeal); 2010 BCSC 1032 (Trial).
Criminal Offence(s): Sexual Assault