Nova Scotia Judge Lenehan’s Ruling

Dispatches from Cyberspace are random writings about recent events, my life, and my much loved and missed daughter ~ Rehtaeh heart_16

“Clearly a drunk can consent.”

~ Nova Scotia Provincial Court Judge Gregory E. Leneham

Nova Scotia Provincial Judge Gregory Lenehan could likely have been the judge had the Rehtaeh Parsons case gone to court as a sexual assault trial while she was alive. Watching what unfolded in a Halifax courtroom this week is how that trial would have ended.

The case in Halifax can be summed up like this: on May 22, 2015, a young woman, 26, clearly intoxicated, gets in a cab after drinking with friends, passes out, and urinates in her pants. At 1:20 am, Halifax Regional Police officers testified they saw the cab and it appeared “suspicious.” One of the officers said she could see an unconscious female lying in the backseat, wearing only a pink tank top pulled up over her breasts. Her clothes and belongings were spread around inside the cab.

The officers testified that the driver of the cab appeared to be trying to conceal the woman’s underwear and noted that when he exited the cab, his pants were undone.

Bassam Al-Rawi was arrested at the scene and charged with sexual assault. This week he was found not guilty.

You’d think this was as winnable as a sexual assault case can get. She was unconscious. The direct witnesses to what happened are two Halifax police officers. So how do you get from him being caught literally pulling up his pants to a finding of not guilty?

You turn sexual assault into sex, add some alcohol, and spend the entire trial wondering if sex was or wasn’t what she wanted.

The woman in Lenehan’s case, due to her level of intoxication, remembers very little about the night. She can’t even recall getting into the cab. Given that, how did Lenehan allow this case become an issue of consent? Are we supposed to believe, for no reason, that she just happened to want to have sex with a complete stranger in a cab ride home?

Why did Judge Lenehan believe she was a willing participant in what happened at all? What made the starting point in this case consent and not the available evidence?

Alcohol and biased opinions.

The defence argued she consented but forgot because she was too intoxicated (btw – being too intoxicated makes a person unable to consent). That’s how the case went, and it went there only because Lenehan was willing to first believe this young intoxicated woman wanted to have sex with pretty much anyone.

That’s old dog thinking and it’s right there in his ruling. Lenehan noted that intoxication tends to reduce inhibition and “increase risk-taking behaviour.”

“This often leads to people agreeing and to sometimes initiate sexual encounters only to regret them later when they are sober.” You couldn’t put victim blaming more blatantly in a courtroom like that if you used spray paint.

Lenehan stated that, “In testimony, [the woman] could not provide any information, any details on whether she agreed to be naked in the taxi or initiated any sexual activity. The Crown failed to produce any evidence of lack of consent at any time.”

In other words, with no evidence either way with the exception of DNA and two police eyewitnesses, the case rested entirely on Lenehan’s personal opinion of women and alcohol.

“Clearly, a drunk can consent,” is how that ended. I’ve talked to kids in grade eight with a better grasp of consent than that.

There’s no doubt the complainant was unconscious when she was found by police so at that moment she was unable to consent, Lenehan ruled — but added that it’s “important” to know exactly when she passed out.

No, what’s important is finding out how Lenehan concluded she was consenting in the first place.

If sexual assault charges were laid in Rehtaeh’s case while she was alive, that case may very well have ended up in Judge Lenehan’s courtroom. I can’t imagine how she’d react to a man sitting behind a bench telling her he’s not sure when she stopped consenting to having sex with four boys she didn’t even know while vomiting, and that as a result his verdict is a finding of not guilty.

When consent was allowed to be entered as a defence, as in the Halifax case, it opened a door to Lenehan’s outdated myths and stereotypes about women and drinking. In order to rule in the defendants favour, the judge first had to believe an average, everyday 26 year old Canadian women would head downtown for a few drinks with friends and have sex with the cab driver right at the moment she passed out and peed her pants in what was supposed to be a safe ride home.

The reality is she headed downtown with some friends and woke up in an ambulance.

Rehtaeh went to a sleepover and woke up suicidal.

Neither deserves, or would have deserved, their cases being influenced or judged by such an awful opinion of women.

A photograph of Rehtaeh Parsons being raped wasn’t enough. Two police officers catching a man sexually assaulting an unconscious woman wasn’t enough.

It isn’t enough because these cases weren’t judged based on the evidence, they were judged based on an outdated view of women and alcohol.

What happened in Halifax is but an example of what’s wrong with our criminal justice system — it turns sexual assault into sex and debates consent the entire trial while not once stopping to ask, “Does it make sense to anyone that this woman, in this state, would consent to having sex with anyone, let alone a total stranger?”

Judge Gregory Lenehan believed it made sense and, in essence, gave consent on a young woman’s behalf to something she doesn’t even remember.

Lenehan added that, “A lack of memory does not equate to a lack of consent.”

A lack of memory does not equate to a lack of consent? Consent isn’t about what’s lacking, it’s about what’s present. When it comes to an unconscious woman, despite this ridiculous ruling, consent can’t be present.

Kind of like the Criminal Code of Canada says you can’t give consent on behalf of someone else.

rape cul·ture

noun

:a society or environment whose prevailing social attitudes have the effect of normalizing or trivializing sexual assault and abuse.

For people who want to complain about Justice Lenehan’s decision that “drunk people can consent,” write or call:

Pamela S. Williams
Chief Judge of the Provincial Court
Dartmouth Provincial Court
277 Pleasant St.- 2nd Floor
Dartmouth, NS B2Y 3S2
Phone: (902) 424-2390

This article is also posted at

Huffington Post Canada.

Where to get help:

1. Kids Help Phone: Call 1-800-668-6868 or visit www.kidshelpphone.ca for online chat counselling.

2. Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention: Find a 24-hour crisis centre here.

Consent and the Law

When it comes to consent, the law is very clear that:

  1. You can only consent for yourself.
  2. You actually have to be able to give consent. That means you have to be awake, conscious, and sober enough to make a clear decision.
  3. People in positions of trust, power or authority can’t abuse their position to get sexual activity.
  4. If you imply no through your words or behaviours that’s just as good as saying “NO”.
  5. You have the right to change your mind and stop anytime for any reason during sexual activity.
By | 2017-03-04T09:08:55+00:00 March 3rd, 2017|Categories: Sexual Assault|Tags: , , , , , , |3 Comments

3 Comments

  1. Kimberly March 4, 2017 at 12:51 pm

    Very well written and all points true. And according to the Consent Laws you have posted. It shows that the judge disregarded the law as it is stated, which he is in a position to uphold. Very maddening and sad outcome!!

  2. Joanne March 3, 2017 at 11:31 pm

    Disgusting….if you can’t say no then you can’t say yes

    • Glen Canning March 4, 2017 at 9:46 pm

      It’s sad how many people don’t get that Joanne.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: