George Pappajohn put his house up for sale through a real-estate company. He met with a female real-estate agent from the company at a bar. They had lunch together, including drinks, over the course of approximately three hours, after which the two went to Pappajohn's house where they engaged in sexual intercourse.
The agent claimed that she was raped. However, Pappajohn claims that short of a few coy objections she had consented. After the event the woman was seen running out of the house naked, wearing a bow-tie, with her hands bound, and was in great distress.
During the trial the issue arose of whether the defence of mistake of fact should be put to the jury. Namely, whether Pappajohn should be able to claim that he mistakenly believed that she had consented. The trial judge refused to allow the defence and Pappajohn was convicted.
Opinion of the CourtEdit
The majority opinion was written by Justice McIntyre. He first discussed the question of when a defence should be put to a jury. He held that a defence should be used when there is "some evidence which would convey a sense of reality in the submission." On the facts, he found that there was no evidence, other than the statement of the accused, that if believed, would have allowed for the possibility of consent. Accordingly, the lower court ruling was upheld.
Justice Dickson took a different approach to the defence of mistake of fact. He stated that the defence was derived from the mens rea requirement, which is a subjective standard, and consequently the mistaken belief did not need to be reasonable.
pappajohn, 1980, famous, supreme, court, canada, decision, criminal, defence, mistake, fact, supreme, court, canadahearing, october, 1979, judgment, 1980full, case, namegeorge, pappajohn, majesty, queencitations, 1980, 120rulingpappajohn, appeal, dismissedcour. Pappajohn v R 1980 2 S C R 120 is a famous Supreme Court of Canada decision on the criminal defence of mistake of fact Pappajohn v RSupreme Court of CanadaHearing October 22 1979 Judgment May 20 1980Full case nameGeorge Pappajohn v Her Majesty The QueenCitations 1980 2 S C R 120RulingPappajohn appeal dismissedCourt membershipChief Justice Bora LaskinPuisne Justices Ronald Martland Roland Ritchie Louis Philippe Pigeon Brian Dickson Jean Beetz Willard Estey William McIntyre Julien ChouinardReasons givenMajorityMcIntyre J joined by Martland Pigeon Beetz and Chouinard JJ ConcurrenceMartland J DissentDickson J joined by Estey J Contents 1 Background 2 Opinion of the Court 3 Aftermath 4 See also 5 External linksBackground EditGeorge Pappajohn put his house up for sale through a real estate company He met with a female real estate agent from the company at a bar They had lunch together including drinks over the course of approximately three hours after which the two went to Pappajohn s house where they engaged in sexual intercourse The agent claimed that she was raped However Pappajohn claims that short of a few coy objections she had consented After the event the woman was seen running out of the house naked wearing a bow tie with her hands bound and was in great distress During the trial the issue arose of whether the defence of mistake of fact should be put to the jury Namely whether Pappajohn should be able to claim that he mistakenly believed that she had consented The trial judge refused to allow the defence and Pappajohn was convicted Opinion of the Court EditThe majority opinion was written by Justice McIntyre He first discussed the question of when a defence should be put to a jury He held that a defence should be used when there is some evidence which would convey a sense of reality in the submission On the facts he found that there was no evidence other than the statement of the accused that if believed would have allowed for the possibility of consent Accordingly the lower court ruling was upheld Justice Dickson took a different approach to the defence of mistake of fact He stated that the defence was derived from the mens rea requirement which is a subjective standard and consequently the mistaken belief did not need to be reasonable Aftermath EditThe federal government later amended the criminal offence to require that the jury should consider the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for that belief Sec 265 4 http laws justice gc ca eng C 46 page 6 html anchorbo ga l VIII gb s 264 1The Supreme Court itself clarified the law in the case of R v Sansregret generally indexed as Sansregret v The Queen 1985 1 S C R 570 where it excluded the defense of mistake of fact where the defendant is found to be wilfully blind http scc lexum umontreal ca en 1985 1985scr1 570 1985scr1 570 htm See also EditList of Supreme Court of Canada cases Laskin Court External links Editfull text at CanLII org This article about Canadian law is a stub You can help Wikipedia by expanding it vte Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Pappajohn v R amp oldid 1116366825, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
