Michael Juskey

The accused was convicted by jury of sexual assault.

At sentencing, the court found that the victim lost consciousness and lacked capacity to consent to sexual activity, and that the accused was reckless about whether the victim was consenting.

The court imposed a 32-month penitentiary sentence, rejecting both the Crown's request for 3.5 years and the defence's request for a conditional sentence.

The court found highly mitigating factors including the accused's status as a first-time offender, genuine remorse expressed within 24 hours of the offence, meaningful engagement in counselling and rehabilitation, strong pro-social support, and low risk of recidivism.

The court declined to impose a Sex Offender Information Registration Act order, finding that the accused had established that such an order would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest.

This case involves charges of assault causing bodily harm against Mathew Kinsella and Alexandria Skeffington arising from a violent altercation on October 2, 2022.

The court analyzed video evidence and witness testimony, including the defendants' claims of self-defence and defence of another under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The judge found the complainants' testimonies unreliable due to intoxication and inconsistencies, while accepting Ms. Skeffington's credible testimony.

Applying the Supreme Court's recent guidance on self-defence, the court concluded that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants' actions were unlawful, resulting in dismissal of all charges.

The applicant, charged with sexual assault, brought a Stage 2 application under section 276 of the Criminal Code to adduce evidence of prior sexual activity, specifically a "morning after" consensual sexual encounter.

The court allowed the application, finding the evidence relevant to explain the presence of semen and to the coherence of the defence narrative, without engaging "twin myth" reasoning.

The court limited the scope of questioning to the source of the ejaculate, prohibiting its use to generally impugn the complainant's credibility based on omissions in her police statement.