R v DLW and the Sentience of Animals
In R v DLW, the Supreme Court looked at the definition of bestiality in the Criminal Code, and concluded in their majority decision that it required penetration, and that sexual activity with an animal or forced upon an animal were not sufficient to meet this definition. This case, as the Supreme Court held, was about statutory interpretation, not about animal rights. However, such a ruling seems to disconnect the law from the reality of the situation.
The SCC and DLW: An Example of Judicial Restraint in Difficult Circumstances?
Was the Supreme Court of Canada’s (“SCC”) decision in R v D.L.W. (DLW) appropriate? In deciding DLW the SCC determined the definition of bestiality within s. 160 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The definition may be unsatisfactory and unsavory for many given the circumstances of the case. The cases’ dissent upon each level of appeal is evidence of that reality. A summary of the facts of the case followed by a brief analysis of the courts’ conclusion will be given.
