NCJ Number
97705
Date Published
1985
Length
16 pages
Annotation
This article reviews the changes that have occurred in Canadian rape law since 1975 and examines their impact on and implications for Canadian women.
Abstract
The term 'rape' was deleted from the Criminal Code of Canada and replaced by a broader, tripartite scheme of sexual assault: simple sexual assault, sexual assault accompanied by actual or threatened violence, and aggravated sexual assault. Further, the requirement for corroboration was repealed and now specifies that 'the judge shall not instruct the jury that it is unsafe to find the accused guilty in the absence of corroboration.' New guidelines were issued for questioning a woman about her prior sexual activity; evidence of the complainant's sexual activity may be adduced (subject to the judge's discretion) if it relates to the issue of consent. Consent, or the lack thereof, has been the focal point of most rapes. In Morgan v. D.P.P., for example, the majority of the Law Lords held that an honest but mistaken belief about consent would be a valid defense to a charge of rape. In 1980, confronted with the same issue, the Supreme Court of Canada reached the same decision in Pappajohn v. The Queen. To clarify the Pappajohn decision, Parliament has incorporated into recent amendments a subsection dealing specifically with the defense of honest but mistaken belief. This new provision, like the other provisions of the rape reform legislation, results in only a cosmetic change. Forty-eight references are included.