A man who intentionally broke his condoms during sex with sex workers was found guilty Thursday of sexually assaulting two women. William Bernard Martin tried to blame the massive size of his penis for the repeated breaks, but the judge rejected his defense.
The 31-year-old Montrealer was found guilty of two counts of sexual assault and three counts of obtaining sexual services for consideration. He was acquitted in respect of the two other victims, who did not testify at the trial.
This unusual case is similar to a case of “stealthing”, i.e. the non-consensual removal of a condom during sexual intercourse. When a person consents to sexual relations with a condom, it is a sexual assault if there was ultimately no condom, according to the Supreme Court. In short, explicit consent is required to remove the condom.
In 2020, William Bernard Martin frequented an erotic massage parlor in Montreal. The Crown accuses him of intentionally breaking his condom during sexual relations with four sex workers. The women initially believed it was an accident, before realizing it appeared to be a modus operandi.
The first victim, “A”, notices after five minutes of sexual intercourse that the condom has just cut “pretty perfectly”. “It was not split,” she testified. It’s “total” panic for the young woman who then fears becoming pregnant or catching illnesses.
Similar scenario for victim “B”. This time, the young woman is “suspicious” during the sexual relationship since she observes the accused manipulating the base of his condom on the wall mirrors. Suddenly, she hears a noise “like that of a rubber band being torn.” She notices that the condom is “literally torn in two”. The victim then gives him the benefit of the doubt.
A few weeks later, “B” recognized the accused at the reception desk. An altercation then occurred between the accused and “D”, a sex worker. She is furious because she blames Martin for breaking his condom during sex. It is in this context that several women at the salon filed a complaint.
At trial, William Bernard Martin argued that the condoms offered by the salon – a customer is not allowed to use his own condom – were too small for him. He argues that the condom “could have broken because his penis is very large or for other reasons on which he refuses to speculate,” explains the judge.
William Bernard Martin argued at trial that the massage parlor used “standard” size condoms from the Lifestyle brand. However, he experiences “discomfort” in such condoms. He swore at trial that he “never” intentionally broke a condom.
Judge André Perreault, however, rejected his defense.
“The Court holds that, whatever the size of the accused’s penis, the size of the condom chosen by A suited the accused’s penis,” concluded the judge.
The magistrate noted numerous “lies” in the testimony of William Bernard Martin. For example, the judge does not believe that the accused could have noticed the precise brand of the condom chosen by the victim. The credibility of the accused was also affected by the fact that he suggested to “B” that they continue the relationship even after the condom was broken. Also, the accused gave the wrong telephone number to “B” after the incident.
Surprisingly, Judge Perreault affirms that the “effectiveness of condoms” in protecting against a sexually transmitted infection and pregnancy is not “office knowledge” information by the Court. “These are not facts that are notorious,” he said. That said, his observation does not change the verdict.
As “D” did not testify, Crown Attorney Me Anna Levin presented similar fact evidence in an attempt to secure a guilty verdict. However, the judge did not accept the prosecution’s theory, thus acquitting the accused on the count of sexual assault against “D”. The Crown had no evidence regarding “C”.