The public prosecutor is appealing the acquittal for sexual assault of André Chenail, this former deputy who had a sexual relationship with an employee unable to consent due to a serious concussion. The Crown believes that the judge erred in upholding the defense of “honest belief” in the accused’s consent.
Posted at 12:18 p.m.
In a notice of appeal filed Wednesday morning at the Court of Appeal of Quebec, the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (DPCP) claims to annul the verdict of acquittal rendered by Judge Joey Dubois on May 2, and to convict André Chenail of sexual assault.
Member of the Quebec Liberal Party for Huntington from 1989 to 2007, André Chenail was accused of assaulting an employee in December 2018, so after his retirement from politics. The complainant claims to have been drugged by André Chenail, while she was drinking a glass of wine with him. She only retains the memory of the ex-chosen penetrating her, when she could not move. When she woke up, she suffered from a concussion.
According to André Chenail, the complainant fell during her brief absence. The woman was then visibly “unconscious”. André Chenail claims to have placed her on the sofa where she vomited on it for several minutes. He never asked for help.
The complainant finally came to her senses, then locked herself in the toilet for 20 minutes, according to André Chenail. It should be noted that at no time was there any question of sexual attraction between the former deputy and his employee. However, when he left, the woman threw herself on the old man to kiss him and grab his penis, according to André Chenail’s account. Many sexual gestures followed.
Justice Dubois found that the complainant did not freely and voluntarily consent to sexual activity because of her head injury. The magistrate, however, accepted the testimony of a neuropsychologist relating to the disinhibition of the sexual behavior of certain women suffering from a cerebral concussion.
“Hypersexuality is plausible. Disinhibition is plausible. The accused’s belief that Madame has come to her senses and is capable of consenting is not unreasonable in itself, considering that he has no medical knowledge,” concluded Judge Dubois.
Thus, Judge Dubois upheld the defense of honest but mistaken belief in André Chenail’s consent and gave him the benefit of a reasonable doubt. The accused therefore did not demonstrate “recklessness or willful blindness”. According to the judge, a reasonable person in the same context would not necessarily have taken “additional steps” to verify the complainant’s consent.
Among the three grounds of appeal put forward, the DPCP maintains that Judge Dubois erred in law by “drawing erroneous legal conclusions […] as to the reasonableness of the steps taken by the accused to secure the complainant’s consent”.