
Professor Patricia J. Falk
C|M|LAW Professor Patricia J. Falk’s 1998 article Rape by Fraud and Rape by Coercion, 64 Brook. L. Rev. 39 (1998) was cited on March 8, 2014, in a much anticipated decision by The Supreme Court of Canada. The decision involved a sexual assault case in which the man intentionally perforated a condom and was convicted of sexual assault. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the conviction.
Writing about “the distinction made in U.S. criminal and tort law between deceptions going to the fact (“fraud in the factum”) which vitiate consent for the purposes of rape and battery and other deceptions that act as inducements (“fraud in the inducement”) which do not”, on pages 33-34 of the opinion, the court says:
“A further example is the distinction made in U.S. criminal and tort law
between deceptions going to the fact (“fraud in the factum”) which vitiate consent for
the purposes of rape and battery and other deceptions that act as inducements (“fraud
in the inducement”) which do not. As expressed by one leading text, the rule is that
“if the deception relates not to the thing done but merely to some collateral matter”
the consent is valid: R. M. Perkins and R. N. Boyce, Criminal Law (3rd ed. 1982), at
p. 1079. No matter how beguiling it appears at first, the distinction has proved
unworkable. It is not helpful in differentiating between legally effective and
ineffective consent and where it attempts to draw the line has no basis in principle:
see, e.g., P. J. Falk, “Rape by Fraud and Rape by Coercion” (1998), 64 Brook. L. Rev.
39, at p. 159-61.”
Here is a link to the decision – http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13511/index.do The reference to Professor Falk’s article is not visible on the html page, but you may view it by clicking on the small PDF icon in the right hand corner of the gray box at the top of the page. The list of references appears on page 10.
Like this:
Like Loading...