Law Supreme Court of Canada dismisses Crown's final appeal in sexual assault case of R v Vu

[EndlessCritic]

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2024/2024scc1/2024scc1.html

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/cmac/doc/2023/2023cmac2/2023cmac2.html

How many times does a woman need to say "yes" for consent to be valid? According to the Canadian government, 8 is not enough times. In a decision released today, the Supreme Court of Canada disagreed, and dismissed the Crown's final appeal.

By all accounts, Mr. Vu had been drinking with the complainant (SB), and she got quite drunk. He and others took her to her bedroom, while she was effectively unconscious.

Shortly thereafter, the complainant woke up and asked Mr. Vu to perform oral sex on her. Concerned about what was going on, and also quite drunk himself, Mr. Vu proceeded to video-record their entire conversation and sexual activity. According to the trial judge, this is what happened in the recording:

[48] A careful listening of the words exchanged in the 50 seconds of the pre-sexual activity phase reveals that Private Vu makes eight requests to S.B. seeking affirmative confirmation of her agreement that he engage in performing oral sex on her. These requests are almost all immediately followed by an affirmative response in the form of a “yeah” from S.B. or, in the case of the third request, an interruption by the word “please” repeated twice, leading to a fourth request by Private Vu, the exchange developing as follows from there:

Private Vu: “Is that what you want?

S.B.: Yeah!

Private Vu : With your permission?

S.B.: Yeah! Just eat me… Come…”

[49] Following this exchange, S.B. is heard mumbling mostly indiscernible words, although the words “pussy” and “right now” are discernable. Private Vu says again at 39 seconds “You want me to eat you? That is your permission?” The immediate reply from S.B.: “Yeah”. Private Vu then formulates one last question: “You’re give me fully permission right now (sic)?” The immediate reply from S.B.: “Yeah” followed by a few words, including the word “pussy” said twice.


During the ensuing sexual encounter, the complainant can be heard in the video stating the following: "“Piew, you’re onto my pussy right now right? Tasty?”, among other communications signaling her active participation and enjoyment.

Notwithstanding all of this evidence, Vu was charged with sexual assault, on the basis that the complainant was too drunk to consent to the oral sex which occurred. The charges were dismissed at every level, and the Crown appealed every acquittal all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. In a 6-1 decision, the Crown has lost their final appeal.

Does anyone want to explain to me how it was possibly in the public interest for this guy to be charged, and for the Crown to appeal every acquittal to the Supreme Court, and to attempt to have him branded a sexual offender for life?

 

[Get To Da Choppa]

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2024/2024scc1/2024scc1.html

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/cmac/doc/2023/2023cmac2/2023cmac2.html

How many times does a woman need to say "yes" for consent to be valid? According to the Canadian government, 8 is not enough times. In a decision released today, the Supreme Court of Canada disagreed, and dismissed the Crown's final appeal.

By all accounts, Mr. Vu had been drinking with the complainant (SB), and she got quite drunk. He and others took her to her bedroom, while she was effectively unconscious.

Shortly thereafter, the complainant woke up and asked Mr. Vu to perform oral sex on her. Concerned about what was going on, and also quite drunk himself, Mr. Vu proceeded to video-record their entire conversation and sexual activity. According to the trial judge, this is what happened in the recording:

[48] A careful listening of the words exchanged in the 50 seconds of the pre-sexual activity phase reveals that Private Vu makes eight requests to S.B. seeking affirmative confirmation of her agreement that he engage in performing oral sex on her. These requests are almost all immediately followed by an affirmative response in the form of a “yeah” from S.B. or, in the case of the third request, an interruption by the word “please” repeated twice, leading to a fourth request by Private Vu, the exchange developing as follows from there:

Private Vu: “Is that what you want?

S.B.: Yeah!

Private Vu : With your permission?

S.B.: Yeah! Just eat me… Come…”

[49] Following this exchange, S.B. is heard mumbling mostly indiscernible words, although the words “pussy” and “right now” are discernable. Private Vu says again at 39 seconds “You want me to eat you? That is your permission?” The immediate reply from S.B.: “Yeah”. Private Vu then formulates one last question: “You’re give me fully permission right now (sic)?” The immediate reply from S.B.: “Yeah” followed by a few words, including the word “pussy” said twice.


During the ensuing sexual encounter, the complainant can be heard in the video stating the following: "“Piew, you’re onto my pussy right now right? Tasty?”, among other communications signaling her active participation and enjoyment.

Notwithstanding all of this evidence, Vu was charged with sexual assault, on the basis that the complainant was too drunk to consent to the oral sex which occurred. The charges were dismissed at every level, and the Crown appealed every acquittal all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. In a 6-1 decision, the Crown has lost their final appeal.

Does anyone want to explain to me how it was possibly in the public interest for this guy to be charged, and for the Crown to appeal every acquittal to the Supreme Court, and to attempt to have him branded a sexual offender for life?

This man went down on the woman with her explicit permission, and got nothing back in return, not even a pity handjob, and now he's getting branded a sex offender? Seems like the Supreme Court got it right this time

 

[Source]

Absolutely bizarre. If the crowns case was valid wouldn’t it invalidate nearly every conviction where the perpetrator was inebriated?

 

[scoopj]

Sounds like she sexually assaulted him. Poor guy.

 

[Cool Hand Luke]

Do people talk like that? If I'm that drunk there is a greater likelihood that I pass out long before I start huffing pubes.

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2024/2024scc1/2024scc1.html

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/cmac/doc/2023/2023cmac2/2023cmac2.html

How many times does a woman need to say "yes" for consent to be valid? According to the Canadian government, 8 is not enough times. In a decision released today, the Supreme Court of Canada disagreed, and dismissed the Crown's final appeal.

By all accounts, Mr. Vu had been drinking with the complainant (SB), and she got quite drunk. He and others took her to her bedroom, while she was effectively unconscious.

Shortly thereafter, the complainant woke up and asked Mr. Vu to perform oral sex on her. Concerned about what was going on, and also quite drunk himself, Mr. Vu proceeded to video-record their entire conversation and sexual activity. According to the trial judge, this is what happened in the recording:

[48] A careful listening of the words exchanged in the 50 seconds of the pre-sexual activity phase reveals that Private Vu makes eight requests to S.B. seeking affirmative confirmation of her agreement that he engage in performing oral sex on her. These requests are almost all immediately followed by an affirmative response in the form of a “yeah” from S.B. or, in the case of the third request, an interruption by the word “please” repeated twice, leading to a fourth request by Private Vu, the exchange developing as follows from there:

Private Vu: “Is that what you want?

S.B.: Yeah!

Private Vu : With your permission?

S.B.: Yeah! Just eat me… Come…”

[49] Following this exchange, S.B. is heard mumbling mostly indiscernible words, although the words “pussy” and “right now” are discernable. Private Vu says again at 39 seconds “You want me to eat you? That is your permission?” The immediate reply from S.B.: “Yeah”. Private Vu then formulates one last question: “You’re give me fully permission right now (sic)?” The immediate reply from S.B.: “Yeah” followed by a few words, including the word “pussy” said twice.


During the ensuing sexual encounter, the complainant can be heard in the video stating the following: "“Piew, you’re onto my pussy right now right? Tasty?”, among other communications signaling her active participation and enjoyment.

Notwithstanding all of this evidence, Vu was charged with sexual assault, on the basis that the complainant was too drunk to consent to the oral sex which occurred. The charges were dismissed at every level, and the Crown appealed every acquittal all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. In a 6-1 decision, the Crown has lost their final appeal.

Does anyone want to explain to me how it was possibly in the public interest for this guy to be charged, and for the Crown to appeal every acquittal to the Supreme Court, and to attempt to have him branded a sexual offender for life?

Sean Strickland was right

 

[Super_Nintendo]

Does anyone want to explain to me how it was possibly in the public interest for this guy to be charged, and for the Crown to appeal every acquittal to the Supreme Court, and to attempt to have him branded a sexual offender for life?

shitlib policies have infiltrated the legal system up there and cops, DAs, and even judges take orders by feminists. whatever america is that shithole is ground zero for woke activism in the legal system.

they do everything they can to almost guarantee convictions and remove due process in those types of cases and *only* those types of cases. sexual assault is the only crime, not even murder, where the state forces the defense to be upfront about their legal strategy and what they plan on presenting in court. this became rule after a very famous case where the complainant cooked up a huge story then got caught red handed. nothing happened to her. after that case the state goes out of their way to suppress exculpatory evidence as much as they can and make it hard to get any due process.

 

[blaseblase]

Why do you Canucks have a king? Lmao and it's not even your own king, it's the UK's.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Lmao Canada

 

[KoChang]

I'm canadian and things are going down the shitter fast in my country. Far left lunacy in all its glory.

 

[Cool Hand Luke]

Sean Strickland was right

I'm using that

 

[legatoblues]

How did it lead to him being charged in the first place? Obviously someone has made a complaint to the cops at some point - guessing she felt regret after the fact? Or was it about the filming? What an odd scenario. Pleased to see sanity prevail.

 

[EndlessCritic]

How did it lead to him being charged in the first place? Obviously someone has made a complaint to the cops at some point - guessing she felt regret after the fact? Or was it about the filming? What an odd scenario. Pleased to see sanity prevail.

She claimed to have no memory of the incident, and the crown proceeded on the basis that she was too intoxicated to consent, even though she texted Vu "it's OK I wanted it" the next day.



[17] The Military Judge found S.B. to be credible. He accepted her version of events to the extent she could recollect them. He even accepted her explanation that she misled Pte Vu the next morning when she texted him to say “it’s OK I wanted it”. Pte Vu apparently experienced some relief upon reading that text. However, the Military Judge accepted her evidence that she had no recollection of events and sent the text to Pte Vu in an attempt to “move on and forget about the unfortunate incident of the night before”.

 

[legatoblues]

She claimed to have no memory of the incident, and the crown proceeded on the basis that she was too intoxicated to consent, even though she texted Vu "it's OK I wanted it" the next day.



[17] The Military Judge found S.B. to be credible. He accepted her version of events to the extent she could recollect them. He even accepted her explanation that she misled Pte Vu the next morning when she texted him to say “it’s OK I wanted it”. Pte Vu apparently experienced some relief upon reading that text. However, the Military Judge accepted her evidence that she had no recollection of events and sent the text to Pte Vu in an attempt to “move on and forget about the unfortunate incident of the night before”.

No, I mean how does it even reach that in the first place. What are the events that lead to the crown even being aware?

 

[EndlessCritic]

No, I mean how does it even reach that in the first place. What are the events that lead to the crown even being aware?

The sexual activity ended when a bunch of people barged in the room, and she appeared to be unconscious. They all reported it.
[51] The sexual activity ended when, approximately five minutes after the start of the recording, several colleagues returned to the room. Immediately they became angry about what they were witnessing. S.B. appeared to be asleep or unconscious at that time and did not stir during the commotion when her colleagues returned.


However, the trial judge also noted the following in his original acquittal:

[105] I wish to state that even if I had been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that S.B. had entered into a state of reduced mental presence, which would have made her lose consciousness or her operating mind… I would still have found Private Vu not guilty of the offence of sexual assault. Indeed, from his position at the foot of the bed performing oral sex on S.B., with his head between her legs, it could not be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Private Vu knew that S.B. had ceased to consent to the sexual activity underway at the time, especially that she was still making moaning noises.

[106] In light of the evidence of agreement to the sexual activity, the movements, words and noises made by S.B. in the course of the activity including moaning until the very end of the touching and beyond, the position of Private Vu and his statement to police to the effect that he only noticed that S.B. had her eyes closed and had potentially passed out after he had been interrupted by the entry of people in the room, I could not conceivably have found that Private Vu knew or should have known or was reckless or wilfully blind as to a risk that S.B. had ceased to consent to the sexual activity going on at the time.

[107] I would have been left with a reasonable doubt as to the mens rea and would have found Private Vu not guilty nevertheless.

 

[legatoblues]

The sexual activity ended when a bunch of people barged in the room, and she appeared to be unconscious. They all reported it.
[51] The sexual activity ended when, approximately five minutes after the start of the recording, several colleagues returned to the room. Immediately they became angry about what they were witnessing. S.B. appeared to be asleep or unconscious at that time and did not stir during the commotion when her colleagues returned.


However, the trial judge also noted the following in his original acquittal:

Also just realised it's a military thing, so yeah that makes more sense again. Thanks responding, I follow now.

 

[Siver!]

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2024/2024scc1/2024scc1.html

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/cmac/doc/2023/2023cmac2/2023cmac2.html

How many times does a woman need to say "yes" for consent to be valid? According to the Canadian government, 8 is not enough times. In a decision released today, the Supreme Court of Canada disagreed, and dismissed the Crown's final appeal.

By all accounts, Mr. Vu had been drinking with the complainant (SB), and she got quite drunk. He and others took her to her bedroom, while she was effectively unconscious.

Shortly thereafter, the complainant woke up and asked Mr. Vu to perform oral sex on her. Concerned about what was going on, and also quite drunk himself, Mr. Vu proceeded to video-record their entire conversation and sexual activity. According to the trial judge, this is what happened in the recording:

[48] A careful listening of the words exchanged in the 50 seconds of the pre-sexual activity phase reveals that Private Vu makes eight requests to S.B. seeking affirmative confirmation of her agreement that he engage in performing oral sex on her. These requests are almost all immediately followed by an affirmative response in the form of a “yeah” from S.B. or, in the case of the third request, an interruption by the word “please” repeated twice, leading to a fourth request by Private Vu, the exchange developing as follows from there:

Private Vu: “Is that what you want?

S.B.: Yeah!

Private Vu : With your permission?

S.B.: Yeah! Just eat me… Come…”

[49] Following this exchange, S.B. is heard mumbling mostly indiscernible words, although the words “pussy” and “right now” are discernable. Private Vu says again at 39 seconds “You want me to eat you? That is your permission?” The immediate reply from S.B.: “Yeah”. Private Vu then formulates one last question: “You’re give me fully permission right now (sic)?” The immediate reply from S.B.: “Yeah” followed by a few words, including the word “pussy” said twice.


During the ensuing sexual encounter, the complainant can be heard in the video stating the following: "“Piew, you’re onto my pussy right now right? Tasty?”, among other communications signaling her active participation and enjoyment.

Notwithstanding all of this evidence, Vu was charged with sexual assault, on the basis that the complainant was too drunk to consent to the oral sex which occurred. The charges were dismissed at every level, and the Crown appealed every acquittal all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. In a 6-1 decision, the Crown has lost their final appeal.

Does anyone want to explain to me how it was possibly in the public interest for this guy to be charged, and for the Crown to appeal every acquittal to the Supreme Court, and to attempt to have him branded a sexual offender for life?

Well... at least your Supreme Court works.

 

[HereticBD]

How did it lead to him being charged in the first place? Obviously someone has made a complaint to the cops at some point - guessing she felt regret after the fact? Or was it about the filming? What an odd scenario. Pleased to see sanity prevail.

It's partly due to that stupid "A drunk woman can never consent" shit, that was usually reserved for women who were passed out and taken advantage of, but then stretched to a "no tolerance" level, where a horny drunk woman that's asking for it, and making out with you and rubbing her tits in your face, as they tell you how they can't wait to get fucked by you later on, is still a victim. Lawyers leaped on that shit. Sanity only sometimes prevails, and you best have video and/or audio evidence of said consent, or you're fucked.

 

[ShadowRun]

Yea progressive as trending mental health ,
Toxic relationships and bad dating experiences are on the rise .. wonder why

 

[Halifax]

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2024/2024scc1/2024scc1.html

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/cmac/doc/2023/2023cmac2/2023cmac2.html

How many times does a woman need to say "yes" for consent to be valid? According to the Canadian government, 8 is not enough times. In a decision released today, the Supreme Court of Canada disagreed, and dismissed the Crown's final appeal.

By all accounts, Mr. Vu had been drinking with the complainant (SB), and she got quite drunk. He and others took her to her bedroom, while she was effectively unconscious.

Shortly thereafter, the complainant woke up and asked Mr. Vu to perform oral sex on her. Concerned about what was going on, and also quite drunk himself, Mr. Vu proceeded to video-record their entire conversation and sexual activity. According to the trial judge, this is what happened in the recording:

[48] A careful listening of the words exchanged in the 50 seconds of the pre-sexual activity phase reveals that Private Vu makes eight requests to S.B. seeking affirmative confirmation of her agreement that he engage in performing oral sex on her. These requests are almost all immediately followed by an affirmative response in the form of a “yeah” from S.B. or, in the case of the third request, an interruption by the word “please” repeated twice, leading to a fourth request by Private Vu, the exchange developing as follows from there:

Private Vu: “Is that what you want?

S.B.: Yeah!

Private Vu : With your permission?

S.B.: Yeah! Just eat me… Come…”

[49] Following this exchange, S.B. is heard mumbling mostly indiscernible words, although the words “pussy” and “right now” are discernable. Private Vu says again at 39 seconds “You want me to eat you? That is your permission?” The immediate reply from S.B.: “Yeah”. Private Vu then formulates one last question: “You’re give me fully permission right now (sic)?” The immediate reply from S.B.: “Yeah” followed by a few words, including the word “pussy” said twice.


During the ensuing sexual encounter, the complainant can be heard in the video stating the following: "“Piew, you’re onto my pussy right now right? Tasty?”, among other communications signaling her active participation and enjoyment.

Notwithstanding all of this evidence, Vu was charged with sexual assault, on the basis that the complainant was too drunk to consent to the oral sex which occurred. The charges were dismissed at every level, and the Crown appealed every acquittal all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. In a 6-1 decision, the Crown has lost their final appeal.

Does anyone want to explain to me how it was possibly in the public interest for this guy to be charged, and for the Crown to appeal every acquittal to the Supreme Court, and to attempt to have him branded a sexual offender for life?

I am soooo glad I got all my partying days done circa 1999-2011 lol