Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Uh, no, and you can cut that bolded #### out.
In Canadian law, consent cannot be given in advance, nor can it can be given retroactively. The video evidence is restricted to those two things, which is why it isn’t evidence of consent.
As I said, this has already been discussed and sourced so you can go back through if you want. But your position doesn’t even make logic sense. If there was video evidence of (valid) consent that was known to investigators and the representation of the victim and accused, there would be no charges and no trial.
|
Well by that definition if consent can not be given before or after the act exactly when can consent happen? Right at the moment. Consent can also be taken away at any time. Were the videos played for the jury? They were. Regardless they are going to take what they saw into account. Has the crown proven in any way there was not consent? They have not. Did the videos destroy her credibility? Probably.