The appellant was convicted of sexual assault causing bodily harm.
At trial, the judge instructed the jury that consent was not a defence to the charge, relying on older jurisprudence.
On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury in accordance with R. v. Quashie, which requires a finding that the accused subjectively intended to cause bodily harm before consent is vitiated.
The Court of Appeal agreed, holding that the trial judge erred in removing the defence of consent without instructing the jury to consider the appellant's subjective intent.
The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.
