A youth was tried for sexual assault, unlawful confinement, and threats arising from an incident in which several young men attended a teenage complainant’s home and sexually assaulted her.
The defence challenged credibility and argued that the accused was merely present and not a participant.
The court accepted the complainant’s explanation for delayed and incremental disclosure and held that inconsistencies in the evidence of young witnesses were largely peripheral.
Applying the law of party liability under s. 21 of the Criminal Code, the court found that the initial group shared a common purpose of sexual activity regardless of consent and facilitated the assaults while preventing interference from the complainant’s brother.
The accused was therefore a party to the sexual assault and unlawful confinement.
