Sabrina Shillingford

Following a jury trial, the accused was found guilty of robbery, extortion, sexual assault, and threatening death.

The accused had stolen the complainant's phone and used it to coerce her into performing sexual acts, before subsequently forcing vaginal intercourse upon her.

The defence argued that the rule against multiple convictions (the Kienapple principle) should apply to stay either the extortion or sexual assault conviction.

The court held that the Kienapple principle did not apply, finding that the extortion and the subsequent forced intercourse lacked a sufficient factual and legal nexus, as the intercourse was a departure from the coerced agreement and constituted a distinct delict.

Convictions were entered on both counts.

During a jury trial for sexual assault, the Crown requested a mid-trial instruction adapting the R. v. D.D. principles on delayed disclosure to address the complainant's incremental disclosure of vaginal penetration.

The defence opposed, arguing their challenge to credibility was based on specific cross-examination rather than a reflexive equation of delay with dishonesty.

The court declined to give the mid-trial instruction, finding it unnecessary and potentially prejudicial at this stage.

The court held that the jury already had a well-developed body of evidence and that the D.D. principles would be better communicated in the context of the final jury charge.