Former Igloolik mayor Merlyn Recinos not guilty of sexual assault
Crown failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that sexual encounter was not consensual, judge says
A Nunavut judge found former Igloolik mayor Merlyn Recinos not guilty of sexual assault in a verdict handed down Friday. (File photo)
A Nunavut judge has ruled former Igloolik mayor Merlyn Recinos is not guilty of sexual assault.
Justice Christian Lyons delivered his verdict Friday morning in Igloolik.
He said the Crown did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged sexual assault occurred.
“The Crown has this burden and Recinos does not have to prove anything,” Lyons said.
“Most of the evidence in this case came from people who were highly intoxicated and described as blacked out. The impact of these high levels of intoxication reduces the reliance and weight I can give that evidence.”
The female complainant, whose identity is protected by a court order, accused Recinos of sexually assaulting her in his home in Igloolik on the morning of March 13, 2021, following a party that started the night before.
Lyons said DNA evidence presented during the trial made it clear that a sexual encounter between Recinos and his accuser did occur.
But Lyons noted Recinos and the complainant were the only witnesses to the encounter.
“In order for this encounter to be considered a sexual assault the Crown must prove that [the complainant] did not consent to this sexual activity,” Lyons said.
During the trial, Recinos acknowledged sexual activity had occurred based on the DNA evidence. However, he said he had “a total blackout” during the overnight party and had no memory of the woman being in his home.
The complainant testified that she, too, had blacked out while she was at Recinos’s home before and during the alleged assault.
Lyons noted in his verdict conversations the complainant had with a co-worker six months after the alleged incident.
According to the defence, the complainant told the co-worker “she was afraid and didn’t know what to do” and wasn’t sure if she had had sex or had been sexually assaulted.
“This finding cannot help but lessen the reliability and credibility I can assign [the complainant’s] evidence in court regarding what she said happened with Merlyn,” Lyons said.
Testifying on the first day of the trial Monday, the woman maintained she had no recollection of the conversations with her co-worker but agreed they did occur.
“Given that I cannot rule out that [the complainant] told someone that she wasn’t sure she was sexually assaulted and wasn’t sure she had sex with Merlyn, I cannot rule out that she may have consented to the sexual activity,” the judge said.
Lyons said that in finding Recinos not guilty, he was not concluding that a sexual assault did not occur or that the complainant was lying.
“I have come to no such conclusions,” he said, adding Recinos is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
Let me get this straight…the Judge cannot rule out that she did not consent but, she was blacked out and assumed underage considering the court ban on her name so, how can you rule then, that she did consent? AND acknowledge that an encounter did occur and that she was not lying. The justice system is not about justice…wow.
So here we see the problem with the “cannot consent while intoxicated” argument. How can we say that a person is not responsible for their given consent while intoxicated, but that another person who is also intoxicated is responsible to determine if the first person is too intoxicated to consent? I know in my case, if presuming an intoxicated person is not capable of consent, that my wife and I would both be guilty of sexual assault on each other at some points in the past. Should we just outlaw all sex while intoxicated?
.
I do not condone sexual assault, but I do support personal responsibility. If you’re intoxicated and consent to sex with somebody else, whether or not you regret it in the future, that’s on you. I’m not saying that’s what happened in this case. The fact is, essentially what the judge said, we do not and will never know what actually happened. I’m presuming the victim had no defensive wounds or bruising otherwise that would’ve been presented in the case and the crown would’ve used that as evidence.
.
As for the underage argument, it is not necessarily true that the court-ordered ban of publishing her name is due to her age. It could also be that she is a minor in terms of being under 18, but the age of consent is 16, so she could be 16-17. Not that I approve of that age-gap, but that’s the law as it stands.
If the victim were underage that would be accounted for in the verdict.
It is a ciminal case so it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime occured. If there is a reasonabld doubt, the person does not get convicted. Still, the thing may have happened. If it was tried in civil court, it would have to be proven only on a balance of probabilities, so it would have to be proven that it is more likely to have happened than not. But it takes money to pay for a lawyer to take on a civil case. Perhaps there are non profit organizations that do that for women, especially when famous men and vulnerable women are at stake, because it can send a strong message that powerful men cannot get away from responsibility.
I don’t think the victim was underage. A publication ban on the name is pretty typical for sexual assault cases no matter what age the victims are.
Another qaluunaq man getting away.
Where does it say there was an underage person?
That girl clearly confessed that she was blacked out. This is not the first time that happened, nor will it be the last.
We do not know from this article that the complainant had no wounds, I do not know if communities have the ability at health centres to examine possible victims of sexual assault, it took a lot of courage for the complainant to come forward, why would she have done it if there was no evidence at all of injury, a citizen challenging someone in authority like a mayor is very courageous, I thought we were done with women needing to have other people verifying their testimony. People need to read the court decision. Available I suppose online on canlii or soon to be available there.
A janitor has to go through a criminal records check to apply for a job across Canada.
Nunavut should start implementing the criminal records check for people running for office. Be it territorial or local.
A janitor or dish washer is under scrutiny but not mayor’s, MLA or local board member.
(…errrr… wait. This is none of it. You can’t….)