Law Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for legal professionals, students, and others with experience or interest in law. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Let's say Alice is sexually assaulted by a man, and circumstantial evidence pinpoints Bob as the attacker. Can Bob claim that, because he is homosexual/asexual, he does not find Alice sexually desirable and so cannot be the attacker?
I'm unable to find anything on this via Google. The closest is the gay panic defense which is still not what this question is about.
This is not a true defense. It would only go to the credibility of the defendant's account claiming that he was not the perpetrator.
Nothing prevents someone who is homosexual or asexual from sexually assaulting someone of the opposite sex within the meaning of the law. Sexual assault is often motivated by reasons other than sexual attraction in any case. Also, some people who publicly hold themselves out as being homosexual are actually bisexual.
It is probably relevant evidence, but ultimately, it is up to the jury to decide who to believe and what happened based upon all of the facts and circumstances.
Bob's argument that you describe is simply an evidentiary argument about identity. If identity and the elements of sexual assault are proved beyond a reasonable doubt, Bob's argument is no defence.
In Canada, one of the elements of sexual assault is that the touching be of a sexual nature. This is an objective test (see R. v. Chase, [1987] 2 SCR 293, at para 11:
The test to be applied in determining whether the impugned conduct has the requisite sexual nature is an objective one: "Viewed in the light of all the circumstances, is the sexual or carnal context of the assault visible to a reasonable observer."
Touching with the motivation of punishment or humiliation can meet this test, regardless of the lack of sexual motivation of the accused. See e.g. R. v. S. (V. C. A.), 2001 MBCA 85.
Depending on the circumstances, this could even render Bob's argument wholly irrelevant.
Can Bob claim that, because he is homosexual/asexual, he does not find Alice sexually desirable and so cannot be the attacker?
Depends on the very details of what Bob allegedly did.
If, for example, Alice claims that Bob got an erection and penetrated her with his penis, he well could prove that she is lying by somehow proving that he cannot be aroused by females in principle. Merely claiming that he is gay/homosexual won't be enough though. An examination by an expert would be required, and that expert would need to give evidence that Bob is indeed indifferent to women.
If, however, Alice claims that Bob simply groped her and put his hand in her underwear, that would still be sexual assault, and, technically, a person indifferent to women still could do it. So, Bob won't have any defence in this scenario.
