• Vancouver at night

Sexual Interference / Invitation to Touching

The Charge

Under s. 151 of the Criminal Code everyone who, for a sexual purpose, touches a person under the age of 16 years is guilty of an indictable offence or a summary offence. Either way, the penalties are serious. If the Crown proceeds by indictment, there is a one year mandatory minimum jail sentence; if Crown proceeds summarily, there is a 90-day minimum jail sentence on conviction. Where a person is found guilty of this offence the court will often impose onerous terms of probation following the jail sentence. These terms may include prohibiting the offender from attending certain public areas and facilities or taking employment that will bring them into contact with persons under 16 years of age or using a computer to communicate with young people.

The offence of sexual interference may be committed by touching the young person’s body directly or indirectly. Under s. 150.1 (1) of the Criminal Code it is not a defence to a charge of sexual interference or sexual assault where the complainant is under the age of 16, that the complainant consented to the sexual activity. In short, a young person between 12 and 14 years of age is legally incapable of consenting to sexual activity with a person who is 2 years or older in age than them. Likewise, a young person between 14 and 16 years of age is incapable of consenting to sexual activity with a person who is 5 years or older than them.

The Investigation

We are experienced trial lawyers and know that the techniques employed by police and the rules of evidence and court procedure can be complex. This is especially true in sexual interference allegations. Police, social workers, Crown victim service workers, doctors and Crown prosecutors join forces and can, at times, overwhelm the suspect. Our experience in defending sexual interference cases allows us to analyze your version of events along with the complainant’s allegations and the whole of the Crown’s case.

Every case is unique, but typically, in a sexual interference charge, the complaint is first made to a parent, a teacher, a friend, a doctor or a counsellor. The complaint then goes to police who investigate further. The police are skilled in gathering information and will always want to talk to the subject of a sexual interference complaint. As experienced defence counsel, this is where we can help clients understand that the Charter protects them from having to speak to police as their right to remain silent is guaranteed by section 7. In situations where we are contacted before our client makes a statement to police, we can be of significant help. We will make enquiries to determine the nature of the complaint. Because of the laws involving “solicitor/client privilege,” we are able to act as a “buffer” between you and police. If appropriate to do so, we can tell police your side of the story in an effort to persuade them to not recommend charges. There is nothing that we as lawyers can say to police or Crown that can be used in court against our clients.

In the event that charges are recommended and approved, we will strive to obtain police agreement to not arrest our client. Rather, we will endeavor to arrange that our client appears in court to have the arrest warrant “deemed executed” without the need for our client to be taken into custody. We will always argue that our client can be released from custody on the most liberal bail conditions that are appropriate.

Recent Successes

R. vs. J.A. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Personation, Use of Forged Identity Documents, Resist Arrest.
Issue: Whether the search and seizure of the documents was an unlawful Charter breach.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown and the Court that, in all the circumstances, it was in the public interest to grant our client a conditional discharge without any reporting condition. 

R. vs. J.H. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault with a Weapon; Assault Causing Bodily Harm (domestic).
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to convince Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings just prior to the trial date. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.B. - ICBC Fraud Investigation

Charge: Theft Under$5000.
Issue: Whether there was a public interest in approving the charge.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel that there was no public interest in approving any charge whatsoever. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.K. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether it was appropriate for our client to be granted a conditional discharge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the trial judge to grant our client a conditional discharge rather than the conviction that Crown counsel was seeking. No criminal record.

R. v. M.P. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Theft Under$5000.
Issue: Whether there was a public interest in approving the charge.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel that there was no public interest in approving any charge whatsoever. No criminal record.

R. vs. O.A. - Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic). Issue: Given the lack of clarity…

R. vs. A.U. - Vancouver Provincial Court

strong>Charges: Sexual Assault; Assault; Theft Under; Breach of Undertaking.
Issue: Given our client's circumstances and the circumstances of the allegations, whether it was in the public interest for Crown to proceed with all charges.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed only on the assault charge and to stay proceedings on all other charges. After considering Mr. mines' submissions, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge and placed him on probation for 12 months. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. V.P. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault with a Weapon; Assault Police Officer.
Issue: Given some weakness in the assault with weapon charge and the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, whether it was appropriate for the Crown to seek the jail sentence they were originally seeking.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings on the AWW charge and to jointly seek a conditional discharge on the assault police officer charge. No jail. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. S.K. - Surrey Provincial Court

Charges: Fraud Over $5000 (from Employer).
Issue: Given the civil settlement  we were able to obtain on our client's behalf, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Johnson, after successfully negotiating a civil settlement with the complainant, was able to persuade Crown counsel to not approve the criminal charges that RCMP had recommended. No jail. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Impaired Driving; Driving Over .08.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for Crown counsel to proceed with the criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown to allow our client to resolve this matter by pleading guilty to a lesser offence under the Motor Vehicle Act. Our client received a driving prohibition and fine. No criminal record.

R. v. S.W. - Courtenay RCMP Investigation

Charges: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking.
Issue: Whether the search of the vehicle and our client was lawful.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through the investigation and made representations to police that the search was unlawful. Police declined to recommend any  charges. No criminal record.

R. vs. A.N. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault with a Weapon.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we guided our client through, whether it was in the public interest for Crown to seek a conviction on this charge.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown to permit our client to plead to the lesser offence of common assault. After hearing Mr. Johnson's submissions, the court granted our client a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

The Defence

No Sexual Contact

The Crown’s first hurdle in a sexual interference case is proving that there was any contact whatsoever between the complainant and the accused. The location, date, and time of the alleged incident is certainly important because it may be that the accused can establish that they were, in fact, in another place at the time of the alleged incident. There are various rules that govern such alibi defences, and we have the necessary experience and skill required to advance such defences where appropriate.

Consent

The defence of consent is limited in sexual interference cases. Section 150.1 sets out that where the complainant is between 12 and 14 years of age, consent may only serve as a defence if the accused is less than 2 years older than the complainant. Where the complainant is between 14 and 16 years of age, consent may only serve as a defence if the accused is less than 5 years older than the complainant. In all cases, in order for consent to be considered as a defence, the accused must not be in a position of trust or authority over the complainant. Additionally, the accused must take “all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the complainant.”

In essence, the Crown has the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused did not take reasonable steps to ascertain that the complainant was within the legal range of age. In appropriate cases, we can advance the defence of honest but mistaken belief in the age of a consenting complainant, but only where we can show that the accused did take all reasonable steps to ascertain that the complainant was of legal age.

Start with a free consultation.

If you are being investigated by police or if you’ve been charged with a criminal or driving offence, don’t face the problem alone. Being accused of an offence is stressful. The prospects of a criminal record or jail sentence can be daunting. Even if you think there is no defence, we may be able to help. To schedule a free initial consultation with one of our Vancouver lawyers, contact us now.