David Rampersad

The respondent was convicted at trial of sexual assault upon a young girl.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed his appeal, finding that similar fact evidence from other children was inadmissible.

The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The majority of the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the conviction, holding that the similar fact evidence was admissible to show a system adopted by the respondent and its probative force outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The appellant broke into the complainant's home, terrorized her, and had intercourse with her after she pretended to consent out of fear for her life.

The trial judge acquitted the appellant of rape, finding he honestly believed she consented, despite being wilfully blind to the fact that her consent was extorted by threats.

The Court of Appeal overturned the acquittal and entered a conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that while an honest but unreasonable belief in consent can negate mens rea, the defence of mistake of fact is not available where the accused is wilfully blind to the forced nature of the consent.