Why a Kamloops man was acquitted of sexual interference against a 15-year-old girl | iNFOnews | Thompson-Okanagan's News Source
Subscribe

Would you like to subscribe to our newsletter?

Kamloops News

Why a Kamloops man was acquitted of sexual interference against a 15-year-old girl

FILE PHOTO

CONTENT ADVISORY

KAMLOOPS - He offered a 15-year-old girl a ride home from a party, shared his cocaine with her, brought her back to his parents’ home and had sex with her before she walked home early in the morning.

But Jacob Cavanagh, who was 21 years old at the time, was found not guilty of sexual interference with a person under 16 because he had no reason to believe she wasn’t of age.

In a lengthy decision last week, Kamloops Provincial Court Judge Stella Frame explained in great detail the difficulties of sex offences involving young people who act much, much older than they are and why Cavanagh couldn’t be convicted.

Frame described the young girl and the situation as it was presented to Cavanagh that early November 2016 morning. He didn’t know who she was before that night, but she was partying with people closer to his age. She dressed like an adult, spoke like he and his friends would speak, showed experience and comfort with drugs and sex, and nothing she displayed that night led him to believe she was actually 15 years old, not 18 or 19 like he assumed.

All of this together led Frame to find Cavanagh had an “honest but mistaken belief” that she was at least the age of consent, in a case she said was “troubling and disheartening on several levels.” She emphasized this case was not about Cavanagh forcing sex on her, or the girl being too intoxicated to consent, noting the evidence doesn't support either scenario.

Frame also emphasized that Cavanagh wasn’t on trial for the “moral bankruptcy” he displayed that night.

Early one morning in November 2016, the girl, who cannot be identified by law, snuck out of her home to meet up with a 14-year-old friend, Frame said, and they attended her older brother's party, who the girl believed was 19 years old. Frame said despite the girls’ young ages, they partied with the man like they were peers.

When the girl decided she wanted to go home, she texted an 18-year-old friend who told her he wasn’t able to pick her up from the house, but he asked two of his friends to. One of them was Cavanagh.

He testified he and his friend only agreed because they were looking to party and perhaps “hook up” with someone. They arrived at the party to pick the girl up, but didn’t go inside so they weren’t sure what the age range of the party was.

Cavanagh testified it looked like a grad party going on. He also testified the girl looked of age when he arrived, and assumed because their mutual friend was 18 years old that she was as well.

“It is not reasonable to expect a person to think a house party still going on at 3:30 in the morning would be attended by 15-year-old youths, even if they were in fact present,” Frame said.

Cavanagh testified that the girl was “hammered” when they picked her up and they were pretty drunk, too. She opened the conversation by asking for "blow" or cocaine, and Cavanagh “chalked” her a line. The girl testified at trial she had done cocaine about four times before. 

The men asked if she wanted to party longer, and she agreed, telling them she needed to be home by 8 a.m. because she snuck out, according to her testimony, but her police statement didn't mention anything about telling the men she had a curfew or snuck out. If she had, Cavanagh's defence would be difficult because willful blindness is not a defence in cases like this. She said she didn't include it in her statement because police didn’t ask.

“She said nothing about a curfew or parents, and that these would have been red flags to him,” Frame said about Cavanagh’s evidence.

Cavanagh assumed she had to be home by 8 a.m. to go to work and since it was only 4 a.m. the three went to Cavanagh's parents' home, where they did cocaine, drank alcohol, and the girl and Cavanagh's friend smoked weed.

“As with (her) presence outside the… home at 3:30 a.m., her use of and experience with drugs and their terms are relevant to what Mr. Cavanagh ought to have been able to assess about (her) age and whether that ought to have embarked him on a further path of inquiry,” Frame said.

At the home, the girl got in the shower. Cavanagh’s friend joined her and she performed oral sex on him. She testified at trial that Cavanagh’s friend got out of the shower and left to get more cocaine.

Shortly after that, the girl told Cavanagh she had sex with the 19-year-old man who hosted the party earlier that night. Frame said in her decision that at this point the girl’s peer group was solidifying for Cavanagh — again no reason to think she wasn't roughly his age.

After the shower the girl only put her underwear on, Cavanagh testified, and while in the kitchen she asked “are we going to fuck or what?”. The pair went to the basement and had sex.

Some time after that, she ended up walking back to the home that hosted the party earlier on. 

“It is both astonishing and alarming that either of these people recall the events of the evening with any clarity or accuracy,” Frame said. “While there are certainly some discrepancies as I have noted, the versions (of events) are largely similar. This speaks volumes about their capacity to consume alcohol and drugs.”

She knew neither of the two men before that night, and said they had no mutual friends on social media nor any discussions about her age or any reason to discuss her age.

A picture of the girl’s Tinder account was entered as evidence, where she displayed her age as 22 years old, the same age she had on her Facebook. Cavanagh had never seen the profile, so its only relevance is to determine how the girl presented herself at the time.

“The picture appears to be of a young woman somewhere around the age of 20,” Frame said. “One cannot look at this photo and believe they are looking at a 15-year-old girl, or a girl close to that age on either side.”

Frame said if the girl did look that evening as she did in that photograph, there was nothing in her appearance that should have alerted Cavanagh that she might be under the legal age of consent. From her appearance, experience with drugs, and manner of speech, Cavanagh believed she was around the age of their mutual friends.

Frame said the girl was angry about how she was treated by the two men after their sexual activities, and added she has a right to be and that they behaved themselves in a “debauched, licentious fashion” by drinking and driving, and picking up a female from a party only if she wanted to maybe hook up. 

In cases of sexual interference of a person under 16, the Crown has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either the accused did not honestly believe the complainant was at least the age of consent, or didn’t take all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant’s age.

The Supreme Court has recognized that it may be reasonable in some cases to ask a partner’s age, but it would be an error to insist a reasonable person would ask a partner’s age in every instance.

As Frame concluded her judgement, she pointed out it takes a village to raise a person, and the village had failed both Cavanagh and the young girl.

She said there was nothing in the girl’s appearance, demeanour, conversation, or the context of the evening that should have compelled any reasonable person to make a further inquiry about her age.


To contact a reporter for this story, email Ashley Legassic or call 250-319-7494 or email the editor. You can also submit photos, videos or news tips to the newsroom and be entered to win a monthly prize draw.

We welcome your comments and opinions on our stories but play nice. We won't censor or delete comments unless they contain off-topic statements or links, unnecessary vulgarity, false facts, spam or obviously fake profiles. If you have any concerns about what you see in comments, email the editor in the link above. 

News from © iNFOnews, 2018
iNFOnews

  • Popular vernon News
View Site in: Desktop | Mobile