John Sansregret Case Analysis

Facts: The appellant, John Sansregret and the complainant lived together for about a year. Their relationship had been violent: “slapping” or “roughing up” in his description and, “blows” in hers. Sansregret broke into the complainant’s home on September 23, 1982, few days after the complainant ended relationship with him. He stormed at her and terrorized her with a file-like object. Because of fear and to calm him down, the complainant had intercourse by holding out hope of some sort of reconciliation. The complainant made a police complaint about this incident stating he raped her, but the police did not take any actions. Further, Sansregret’s probation officer encouraged her not to follow up on the claim. On October 15, 1982, Sansregret …show more content…
The The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC)concluded that willful blindness arises as the accused who has become aware of the need for some inquiry declines to make the inquiry because he does not wish to know the truth. The SCC indicated that the defence of ‘mistake of fact’ would be supportable in this case, were it not for the fact the trial judge found the complainant consented out of fear and the appellant had been willfully blind to the reality of his behavior on October 15, …show more content…
Thus, the trial justice found that the accused was not guilty of rape as defined in (then) s. 143 (a) applying Pappajohn case. But, the SCC explained that in Pappajohn case, because of the bare honesty of belief, the defence of ‘ mistake of fact’ exists, However, in this case, the appellant was willfully blind to the consent of the complainant, deliberately failing to inquire when he knows there is a reason to inquire, so it denies the defence of ‘mistake of