Robson Crim Legal Blog

The International Criminal Court (ICC) recently delivered its verdict in the Dominic Ongwen trial. The trial received quite a bit of attent

Unfortunately, in many of the decisions in sexual assault cases the reasons that some trial judges have relied on are completely unsavoury and flat out rude and false. They add insult to injury by giving breath to the twin-myth reasoning that is rampant in sexual assault cases and try to blend stereotypes about women into the law.

At the heart of sexual assault cases is the presence or absence of consent, and whether the consent was freely given. Unfortunately, this defence often relies on the complainant’s prior sexual activities and can make trial for sexual assault victims an even more humiliating and demeaning experience then it needs to be. This defence often relies upon the twin myth reasoning, which is the idea that complainants with a prior sexual history are firstly more likely to have consent

Generally, bestiality is a topic that one would normally avoid bringing up at dinner parties, in casual conversation or anywhere, really. Bestiality, which refers to a human engaging in sex with an animal, is a topic that is so unsavoury and so revolting, that even the mere mention of it normally elicits a look of horror from the most strong-stomached individual. It is no surprise that, historically, legislators, the judiciary, and the public have not been particularly keen t

The decision in DLW reflected the majority of the court not wanting to open the door to new expansive animal rights law rather than truly believing that bestiality has always included penetration. Two major discussion points support this claim. First the major flaws in the majorities reasoning as pointed out in Abella’s dissent and second the analysis by Jochelson & Gacek of what it would have looked like if they had attempted a Labaye harm test for the offence of bestiality.