A man has been cleared of sexually assaulting his wife after a judge ruled that he did not know the act was criminal, Daily Mail reports. The judge said prosectors failed to establish that the assailant knew it was, in fact, against the law to rape his wife. The incident took place in Canada. Read on below.
Cleared. In Canada, a man has been cleared of sexually assaulting his wife after a judge ruled that he did not know the act was criminal, Daily Mail reports. Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert Smith "said prosecutors had failed to establish that the man knew it was against the law to have sex with his wife without her consent."
The right. At the hearing, the judge explained the couple -- who separated in 2013 -- believed what was taking place was normal. Justice Smith told the court: "I find that the accused probably had sex with his wife on many occasions without her specific consent, as both he and she believed that he had the right to do so."The incident. As Daily Mail reports, the case is related to an assault which allegedly took place in 2002. The Palestinian woman claimed the man, who she was wed off to in an arranged marriage in Gaza, pulled her pants down and had sex with her without her consent.
The incident. The women went on to claim that her husband continued to have sex with her despite her asking him not once, not twice, but three times to stop, Daily Mail reports. In court, the woman testified about the alleged incident.
Testified. In court, the woman — who has not been named — testified that she considered it her “obligation” to have intercourse with her partner, according to the Ottawa Citizen. What’s more, she stated she did not what he was doing was a crime.
Within his rights. Though the women said she did not consent to sex on multiple occasions, she told the court both her and her husband assumed he was well within his rights. Nonetheless, when she heard from a police officers years later about how the law works in Canada, she brought forward the case.
Trial and ruling. The ruling was issued in October, after a five-day trial. "Marriage is not a shield for sexual assault,” Justice Smith told the court. “However, the issue in this trial is whether, considering the whole of the evidence, the Crown has proven the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt."
Trial and ruling. Unsurprisingly, the ruling claiming the man’s innocence has left many enraged. Over at the Ottawa Coalition to End Violence Against Women, campaigners called it “disappointing.”
Denial. During the case, the husband denied ever having sex with his wife sans her consent. He also specifically denied that the 2002 incident ever took place, Daily Mail reports.
Defense. The husband’s defense: that during the week of the alleged 2002 incident, he had been told to abstain from sex. Why? Because he had gotten a hair transplant, Daily Mail reports.
Defense. Unsurprisingly, the judge dismissed the husband’s defense, though he was still ruled innocent. "The judge also said the husband was argumentative as a witness and said his defence was unbelievable,” Daily Mail reports.
Sexual assault. According to Daily Mail, Carrolyn Johnston, the organization's acting executive director, said: "Any sexual contact without explicit and ongoing consent is sexual assault — regardless of the relationship."
Sexual assault. Johnston continued: "He may have believed that he had a right to have sex with her as her husband, but Canadian sexual assault law is clear and was amended to include sexual assault against a spouse in 1983."
Consent. As ar result of the trial, the Sexual Assault Network and rape crisis centers in the city revealed they are going to start promoting public eduction campaigns on consent. This way, the subject of sexual assault is fully understood.
Reactions. In response to the judge’s ruling, one user commented on the Daily Mail: "So if I kill someone, but I really didn't know that it was a crime, then I'm cool? Let's get real, if you wife doesn't want to have sex, just buy a hooker and be done with it.” Another said: "Since when has ignorance been a defence in law?"
0 comments:
Post a Comment