Featured
Woman attempts to bargain with RCMP for fiancé’s release
Claims sex with mutual friend was rape, but won't make statement unless abusive partner freed from jail, a court hears
“While it is a myth that women regularly fabricate allegations of sexual assault, it is not an error to consider whether the circumstances of a particular case support the existence of a motive to fabricate.”
— Justice Nancy Backhouse
An engaged woman who claimed she was raped by a friend during a night of heavy drinking tried to make a deal with police to have her fiancé released from jail in exchange for her cooperation.
On three occasions within a few hours on the morning of March 26, 2021, the woman proposed to exchange her police complaint against the accused for her violent and inebriated fiancé’s release from RCMP holding cells, a court heard last week.
Deputy NWT Supreme Court Justice Nancy Backhouse dismissed the charge of sexual assault against the accused as the attempted exchange “raises a concern that she may have had a motive to fabricate the complaint against the accused.”
The judge continued: “There may be other explanations for the complainant’s efforts to bargain her cooperation with (the female RCMP officer) as submitted by the Crown.
“I note that notwithstanding trying to bargain her fiancé’s release, she did go ahead with the sexual assault kit the morning after the incident, gave a statement to the police and did attend at trial and testify.
“However her conduct is also consistent with a possible motive to fabricate the complaint to get her fiancé out of jail, to get her out of trouble with him for having him arrested and for drinking alone with the accused in their apartment and also to pre-empt any rumours that she had been unfaithful to her fiancé.”
Justice Backhouse, retired from the Ontario Supreme Court, said that after she considered all of the evidence, she couldn’t be sure of which evidence to believe, and she was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.
So what happened? In this case, the only issue in the case is consent, as the accused conceded that sexual intercourse occurred.
A court ordered publication ban protects the identity of the accused, meaning nobody involved can be identified.
At the time of the incident, the complainant was living common-law with her fiancé.
She and her fiancé were walking around the community drinking and had consumed 26 ounces of vodka before running into the accused, with whom they both were friends.
They invited him to come back to their apartment, arriving before midnight where they carried on drinking, stated the judge, reading from her decision on Wednesday morning at the Yellowknife courthouse.
The complainant’s fiancé was pretty intoxicated. The complainant described him as “almost ready to flip on me” and “getting mad.”
She “just remembered getting punched around” and being scared. She called police and he was picked up by the RCMP and arrested, leaving the accused and the complainant in the apartment.
The accused asked if he could sleep over for the night and the complainant said that he was more than welcome.
It’s here where the accounts diverge.
Back to the previous night, the accused completed a day of manual labour just before 6 pm, bought a 26 oz. of vodka and met up with the complainant and her fiancé, both of whom he had known for quite some time.
They drank up most of the accused’s liquor and then the complainant and her fiancé left.
The accused was by himself for approximately half an hour.
He was on his way back to the shelter where he was staying at the time when he met the complainant again.
She was alone. She asked him if he wanted to come back with her to her apartment.
The accused acknowledged that in his mind he thought she may be inviting him back to her apartment for sexual reasons.
After the sexual intercourse, the accused went to sleep. He was awakened by hearing the complainant in the kitchen. He made tea.
There was nothing to eat so he found $5 in his pocket and was getting ready to go to the store when the complainant said she did not have her key.
She said that she would go to the store and he should wait to let her back in.
Fifteen or twenty minutes after the complainant left, the RCMP were at the door and advised him that he was being charged with sexually assaulting the complainant and he was taken to the RCMP attachment.
The accused looked shocked and did not understand why the complainant was claiming he sexually assaulted her.
Shortly after 6 a.m., the RCMP had received a call from dispatch that the complainant had reported the accused had sexually assaulted her.
“She advised that if her fiancé was released from his cell at the RCMP attachment to be her support person, she would go to the hospital to have a sexual assault kit done. (The RCMP officer) advised that she could not agree with that and the complainant was very upset with her.”
Two more times that morning, the complainant told RCMP she did not want to provide a statement or do the sexual assault kit unless her fiancé was released.
The officer responded that providing the sexual assault kit and statement were completely up to her but her fiancé was not going to be released as a bargaining tool.
A friend of the woman eventually accompanied her to the hospital.
At the judge-only trial, the friend testified that the complainant appeared normal.
“She advised that the accused had ‘bothered’ her. The complainant was laughing as she told (her friend) this. The complainant appeared ‘her normal self’ and sober while they walked to the hospital, although she could smell ‘booze’ off her.”
Crown prosecutor Jared Kelly argued at trial the woman’s conduct should be considered as volatile, being caused by the traumatic circumstances of her fiancé being abusive, her having to call the police to have him arrested and then being sexually assaulted by a friend who she trusted.
“It is submitted that her attempts to bargain with (the police) should be understood as her being in crisis and asking for help,” said the judge.
Defence lawyer Alexander Koustov submitted his client’s position of having consensual sex is consistent with his remaining in the apartment after the complainant left and his surprise at his arrest.
Koustov argued the woman had a motive to fabricate the charge as she was in a serious relationship with the fiancé. She regretted having him arrested and she was attempting to pre-empt any rumours she had been unfaithful to her fiancé.
