Acquittals restored for woman on sex charges

The Supreme Court of Canada has restored a woman’s acquittals on sex charges involving a teenaged friend of her children.

Barbara George stood trial at Regina Court of Queen’s Bench, where she was found not guilty of charges of sexual assault and sexual interference.

Justice Fred Kovach found that while the boy had been under the legal agent of consent, at 14, the sex was otherwise consensual and that George believed the boy to be 17 — the same age as her son.

The Crown appealed the Queen’s Bench decision to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal which, in December 2016, overturned the ruling and ordered that a new trial be held.

George took her case to the Supreme Court and, earlier this month, the court issued reasons on its April decision restoring the original acquittals.

The country’s highest court determined the trial judgment contained no errors of law, meaning the province’s Court of Appeal lacked the jurisdiction to interfere.

Court previously heard the matter came to light only when George applied to become a member of the RCMP — a process that required her to answer a question on the application form about whether she’d ever had sex with anyone under 16. The woman asked her son about his friend’s age, at which point she learned he was younger than she’d thought. Having answered “yes” on the application form, an investigation was launched and charges were eventually laid.

Court heard George, then 35 and separated from her husband, had met her son’s friend a number of times prior to the night in question, when the teen was one of several young people who came over to her home for a party.

George told the court the boy walked into her room at one point, impressing her as being mature during a lengthy conversation the two had.

George and the boy both testified at trial, each telling the court the other started the sexual encounter that followed. The court ultimately found the youth initiated the contact.

In determining whether George had taken reasonable steps to determine the boy’s age, Kovach referenced the woman’s testimony that the teen appeared older, smoked, and associated with older teens. The judge found he was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the woman.

In overturning that decision, two of three appeal court judges hearing the matter found the trial judge erred in his analysis of the situation while the third judge dissented, finding no significant error in the decision.

The Supreme Court ultimately agreed with that dissenting view in that respect.

“A careful review of the trial judge’s reasons reveals no legal errors,” the decision reads. “As a result, the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the trial judgment.”

But the court took some exception in a general sense to the dissenting appeal court judge’s position on the lack of “hallmarks of sex crimes against children,” such as grooming and the exploitation of vulnerability.

The Supreme Court said no such hallmarks are required for finding sexual offences, such as the types alleged here, have been committed.