R. v. Sansregret 1. The mens rea of sexual assault must include the knowledge that the woman is consenting to sex because of threats or fear of bodily harm.
2. Sansregret said that he did not know the sex was not consensual and truly believed that the victim was consenting to sexual intercourse. 3. Sansregret should have known that the sex act was not consensual as after they had sex the first time she filed a report for sexual assault.
As well, his violent behavior with breaking in and the use of a knife should have been the strongest indication to himself that the sexual act may not have been consensual. 4. Willful blindness is closing your mind to the possible consequences of your actions. Sansregret should have realized that the sex act was not consensual as he knew that she filed a report after the first time they had sex, and that he had to break into her house and threaten her. The accused blinded himself to the obvious, and made no inquiry as to the nature of the consent which was given.
5. Recklessness is to take an unjustifiable risk that a reasonable person would not take. Sansregret was reckless as he broke into the complainant’s house and threatened her and under those circumstances he had no justifiable reason to believe he had consent. 6. Willful blindness is ignoring possible consequences whereas recklessness is taking a risk that a normal person would not take. Sansregret was reckless until the point when he thought the sex was consensual.
The Term Paper on Perversion Sexual Act
Dermot t O'FlanaganSexual Ethics Paper The issues of sexual ethics in relation to morality and perversion have been addressed in depth by each of the gentleman at this table. Sexual activity as described by Solomon and Nagle is comprised of a moral standard and 'naturalness' aspect. So, in claiming an act is perverted we must first examine it through a moral framework and understand how this ...
After that, the accused blinded himself to the obvious and is considered willfully blind. R. v. Thornton 1. Thornton was charged with common nuisance endangering the lives or health of the public.
The actus reus was the giving of HIV positive blood after knowing the policies of Red Cross. The actus reus is present as he knew that his blood was HIV positive and he gave it knowing full well it was illegal. 2. Generally speaking, from the facts given, the trial judge heard much the same evidence from Munroe that he heard from Thornton. She corroborates Thornton’s evidence with respect to the belief by Thornton that his blood would be caught by the screening process, and that people would therefore not be infected. However, they differ in their evidence with respect to the “blood letting excuse.” It is here, where, assuming that Munroe had nothing personal to gain or loose, her evidence could have been seen as more credible.
The judge, of course, would look at all the other testimony and statements of each of Munroe and Thornton in order to verify their truth and ultimately which person may be more credible. 3. Thornton clearly possessed the necessary mens rea as he knew that he tested positive for HIV. As well, he admitted to reading the signs and pamphlets that clearly stated he was not permitted to give blood.
Thornton claimed that his blood would not pass the screening test as the system was foolproof. This clearly shows the deliberate intention with disregard for the consequences. 4. Thornton’s actions are a serious offence as his disease has the possibility to be lethal. If his blood passed the screening process, many people could become infected with this disease. This can be considered murder as he deliberately gave blood that he knew was HIV positive that could cause death..
