A man who intentionally punctured his condom during sexual relations does not deserve prison time according to the defense, since he did not “force” the women and they were initially consenting. The Crown intends to seek a four-year penitentiary sentence.
William Bernard Martin sexually assaulted two sex workers in 2020 in an erotic massage parlor in Montreal. The women initially believed that the condom had broken by chance during the relationship – initially consensual. However, this was in fact the modus operandi of the accused. It is unknown how he punctured the condom during sex.
His defense at trial was surprising: he blamed the imposing size of his penis to explain the repeated breaking of condoms. A version dismissed by the judge.
The 31-year-old Frenchman was found guilty of two counts of sexual assault and three counts of obtaining sexual services for consideration last February.
Observations on the sentence were to take place Wednesday at the Montreal courthouse. However, the defense lawyer, Me Robert Bellefeuille, requested a postponement in order to produce expert evaluations. The lawyer said he was surprised by the four-year penitentiary sentence requested by the prosecution, since he plans to request a prison sentence in the community (at home).
To justify such a sentence, Me Bellefeuille gave an overview of his arguments. He thus explained that “consent exists[ait] initially” between his client and the victims. However, the Supreme Court has already ruled that sabotaging or removing a condom during initially consensual sexual relations effectively cancels consent.
The criminalist raised another rather astonishing argument. “It’s still a different circumstance, it’s not an individual who sleeps with his ex-partner and forces a sexual relationship. This is not the same case,” argued M.e Bellefeuille.
In the Kirkpatrick decision, which concerns the use of condoms, the Supreme Court recalled in 2022 that defining “real rape” by “physical violence which exceeds the violence of non-consensual contact” represents a myth.
In an interview with La Presse, the lawyer denied spreading myths and stereotypes. “I cite the Supreme Court,” he replied, citing the Kirkpatrick decision. The absence of “physical violence” in the case is important in the choice of the “sentence range”, he continued.
“It has nothing to do with the plaintiff’s work. But there is consent. OK. […] What is his responsibility? [à l’accusé] ? She consents. There is payment. At a given moment, at the very end, because the complainant…” argued Me Bellefeuille in interview.
In court, Me Bellefeuille also appeared to downplay the impact of the crime on one of the victims by casually quoting his statement about the impacts of the crime. “There are no physical repercussions, no economic repercussions,” he told the judge.
Called to clarify his remarks, he explained this to La Presse, without however finishing his thoughts: “She clearly says that it has no physical repercussions, any after-effects. Except for the emotional level. When we get into what became emotional for her, what I understood…”
The sentence requested by the Crown is “too high”, according to the defense. The suspended sentence is appropriate, in particular because William Bernard Martin lost his job following the verdict, explained Mr.e Bellefeuille. His work visa expires next year.
“We were ready to proceed,” said the Crown prosecutor, Ms.e Laurence-Fanny L’Estage. Judge André Perreault finally authorized the preparation of a pre-sentence report with a sexological component. Sentencing arguments will take place next July.