Supreme Court to decide on whether all sex acts with animals should be illegal

• Advisory: Story includes graphic details

The Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments Monday on whether all sex acts with animals should be considered bestiality — and therefore declared illegal.

The disturbing case involves a man from B.C. who was convicted of sexually assaulting his two stepdaughters over the course of a decade. Some of the sex acts involved the family dog.

The man, who cannot be named to protect the identity of the sisters, was originally convicted of eight counts of sexual assault, two counts of child pornography and two counts of bestiality.

The man, known only as D.L.W., appealed one of the bestiality convictions, arguing he hadn’t committed the offence because the act itself didn’t involve intercourse.

Two of the three B.C. Court of Appeal justices hearing the case agreed with the defence and the charge was dropped.

Because one judge dissented, the Crown was allowed to appeal the case to the Supreme Court.

Animal Justice, an organization that uses the legal system to promote animal rights, was allowed to intervene in the case.

D.L.W., who is serving a 16-year-sentence, and his legal team maintained their position at the B.C. Court of Appeal.

The Crown argued, according to its factum filed in court, that the intent of bestiality is any form of sexual activity with an animal, and not limited to intercourse.

Before 1955, bestiality was tied in with the old laws against anal sex, which was known as buggery. The law prohibited buggery, “either with a human being or with any other living creature.” The term “bestiality” was introduced in the Criminal Code in 1955, in which both buggery and bestiality were prohibited. Bestiality became a separate offence in 1987 when Parliament passed a legislative package designed to enhance child sexual- abuse laws.

The Crown argues that interpreting bestiality as a form of buggery gives the offence as drafted in 1955 an illogical scope as it would criminalize anal penetration between a human and animal, yet the vaginal penetration would be perfectly lawful.

The Crown further argues the narrow interpretation of the law “would lead to absurd results,” listing a number of sex acts between children and animals that would not be criminalized by the current bestiality provisions.

Animal Justice argues that “Parliament also intended to protect vulnerable animals from sexual exploitation and the risk of harm.”

The court reserved its decision.