‘A drunk can consent’ judge finds second \cabbie not guilty of sexually assault

[Tennis]

https://globalnews.ca/news/3761432/d...ing-passenger/

A judge has acquitted a former Halifax cab driver accused of sexually assaulting a female passenger.

The Crown alleged Houssen Milad kissed a female passenger on top of her head while driving her home to the Armdale neighbourhood in June 2016, and groped her buttock before she got out of the vehicle.

But Judge Gregory Lenehan said Thursday the Crown did not come anywhere near proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and did a “disservice” to the complainant and to the community.

Defence lawyer Thomas Singleton said police in the case had tunnel vision, focusing on his client and ignoring other possibilities, and didn’t track down other leads.


Lenehan said the complainant’s debit transactions weren’t analyzed to see if there were any from Milad’s cab.

“Did anyone think to check?” the judge asked.

The 26-year-old complainant – who was not present for the verdict – had earlier told Lenehan she did not consent to being touched by the driver.

Milad testified in his own defence, denying through an Arabic interpreter that the woman was ever in his vehicle.

Milad broke down in tears Thursday as the judge told him he was “free to leave” Halifax provincial court.


The decision is the latest in a series of court rulings against Halifax taxi drivers accused of sexual assault. Police said last year there had been 14 reported sexual assault cases involving cabbies in the city over the previous four years.

Lenehan has previously delivered a controversial decision in another case of a taxi driver accused of sexually assaulting a female passenger in his cab.

In that decision, first reported by Metro Halifax, Judge Gregory Lenehan ruled that the Crown didn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant didn’t consent to sexual activity with the cab driver, Bassam Al-Rawi.

“A drunk can consent,” Lenehan said as part of his ruling.

The decision, and that phrase, in particular, sparked a backlash, with protesters taking to the streets in Halifax, groups calling for the judge’s removal, and provincial politicians voicing their disapproval of the judge’s comments.

Earlier this month, the Nova Scotia Judiciary announced on Thursday that a review committee will investigate complaints made against Lenehan.

I don't get why people are so desperate for some that they must go to such lengths to take advantage of drunk people.

Also, why would the alleged victim think that she would get a guilty verdict without any solid evidence?

[Freighter]

There are different levels of drunk, someone who is slightly buzzed can definitely consent. Someone who don't understand what's going on, can't.

[McFuu]

I really can't take people who think drunk people can't consent seriously. Especially how it only applies to women. If you made yourself drunk, you can consent. Beyond cases of people being coerced into drinking too much or being drugged, if you choose to drink, your sobriety or lack there of has no bearing on your ability to make decisions and put yourself in bad situations.

[lewdest]

I don't get why people are so desperate for some that they must go to such lengths to take advantage of drunk people.

I mean, when I get drunk and have sex with some ugly bitch, I sure regret it, but I'm still responsible. Women shouldn't be responsible for their actions though, they're like mentally handicapped people, or children. Oh wait, is that sexist?

The police treated that case with as much respect as it deserved, what a waste of time for everyone involved, except the plaintiff who probably didn't even testify or show up to the court at all.

[Rennadrel]

I mean, when I get drunk and have sex with some ugly bitch, I sure regret it, but I'm still responsible. Women shouldn't be responsible for their actions though, they're like mentally handicapped people, or children. Oh wait, is that sexist?

The police treated that case with as much respect as it deserved, what a waste of time for everyone involved, except the plaintiff who probably didn't even testify or show up to the court at all.

I am of the opinion that if women want to be treated equally to men, they should be willing to be held accountable for their actions. When it comes to drinking, if you choose to get stone cold shit faced, you made that decision, with the knowledge that drinking excessively can impair your judgement. If you have a low alcohol tolerance or you don't know when enough is enough, you are making that choice, regardless of whether you are a man or a woman. Feminists need to understand that alcohol abuse is a two way street and that it effects men and women in the same manner, even though it does so more easily for women than it does men does not exclude them from the knowing your limit rule.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I mean, when I get drunk and have sex with some ugly bitch, I sure regret it, but I'm still responsible. Women shouldn't be responsible for their actions though, they're like mentally handicapped people, or children. Oh wait, is that sexist?

The police treated that case with as much respect as it deserved, what a waste of time for everyone involved, except the plaintiff who probably didn't even testify or show up to the court at all.

Wait let me get this straight an ugly bitch that might have regrets over having sex with you though?

See I am always suspicious of this kind of shit.

No if you are drunk you can't consent IMO, maybe some don't care maybe that isn't how it pans out, but I don't know many who roll the dice and fuck someone where there is a questionable line whether they be ugly or not.

It's real simple, if the argument is that SHE in this case it is on the woman is rolling the dice well then so are you, and she wakes up after having sex and saying NOPE, then I think a charge of rape is legitimate providing their is evidence going forward to prove it.


If the idea is well we don't want to victim blame, but at the same time we don't want to say women can't make their own decisions then we need to pick where that should be.

Because yeah guys have choices to make too, and if the choice is well she can roll the dice you roll the dice, well then there is no bitching if in comes back to bite either in the ass, and then it's just up to where the evidence leads.

[Deleted]

Once again I'm wondering how one can be responsible for killing someone when drunk, or responsible for petty vandalism when drunk, but not responsible for having sex when drunk.

[endersblade]

Fucking GOOD. While I don't condone him doing what he did, the whole 'a drunk can consent' is a step in the right direction. Just because you regret it the next morning doesn't give you any right whatsoever to report someone for sexual harassment or rape. If you tried to fight it off, that's one thing. And probably hard to fight in court, I will admit. But if you ALLOWED it while you are drunk, suck it up mother fucker, you can regret it all you want, don't fucking get people in trouble.

(Again, not condoning the driver groping the woman, or the fact that he actively denies her being in the car, I have no say on that point. Just that a judge is finally putting his fucking foot down on drunk women getting away with everything.)

[sarahtasher]

Once again I'm wondering how one can be responsible for killing someone when drunk, or responsible for petty vandalism when drunk, but not responsible for having sex when drunk.

Again, because driving a car like drunk require to be conscious, while many cases of ''LULZ, WUMIN'' involve women who are passed out

[ohiostate124]

Once again I'm wondering how one can be responsible for killing someone when drunk, or responsible for petty vandalism when drunk, but not responsible for having sex when drunk.

The drunk people agreed to have sex. The sober, dead person didn't agree to be killed.

[McFuu]

Wait let me get this straight an ugly bitch that might have regrets over having sex with you though?

See I am always suspicious of this kind of shit.

No if you are drunk you can't consent IMO, maybe some don't care maybe that isn't how it pans out, but I don't know many who roll the dice and fuck someone where there is a questionable line whether they be ugly or not.

It's real simple, if the argument is that SHE in this case it is on the woman is rolling the dice well then so are you, and she wakes up after having sex and saying NOPE, then I think a charge of rape is legitimate providing their is evidence going forward to prove it.


If the idea is well we don't want to victim blame, but at the same time we don't want to say women can't make their own decisions then we need to pick where that should be.

Because yeah guys have choices to make too, and if the choice is well she can roll the dice you roll the dice, well then there is no bitching if in comes back to bite either in the ass, and then it's just up to where the evidence leads.

So if both people are drunk and she claims rape, can he do the same thing. Or how about using the argument that because he was drunk he doesn't have the mental capacity to be responsible for his decisions, so he couldn't have raped her. I mean she doesn't have the mental capacity to consent so he is in exactly the same position.

The whole drunk can't consent argument is a fraud.

[Deleted]

Again, because driving a car like drunk require to be conscious, while many cases of ''LULZ, WUMIN'' involve women who are passed out

Yet, we're not talking about cases where someone forces themselves on an unconscious person. We're talking about cases where where person A and person B both agree to have sex, and then person B decides the next day it was rape instead.

The drunk people agreed to have sex.

Right, and according to a lot of people on these forums and on this planet really, drunk people can't agree to have sex, because they can't consent.

The sober, dead person didn't agree to be killed.

Pick any other analogy then. Any will do. Because in every single other case ever in recorded history people are responsible when they're drunk. Except when they're having sex. Then they can just throw up their arms in the air and shout "I'm not responsible for my actions! I'm not responsible for my actions!"

[Guy4123]

Yet, we're not talking about cases where someone forces themselves on an unconscious person. We're talking about cases where where person A and person B both agree to have sex, and then person B decides the next day it was rape instead.

Remember who you're replying to. They routinely create arguments no one is discussing so they can argue with themselves about it.

The phrase usual suspects is coming. I can feel it.

[Doctor Amadeus]

So if both people are drunk and she claims rape, can he do the same thing.

Yeah, sure why the hell not.

Or how about using the argument that because he was drunk he doesn't have the mental capacity to be responsible for his decisions, so he couldn't have raped her. I mean she doesn't have the mental capacity to consent so he is in exactly the same position.

Does the evidence support that?

Because if it does based on that same standing then yes, all things being equal. Unless you are just being facetious and you don't think either, then it really doesn't matter.

My position is a guy isn't going to do this and it won't have much impact if he could or not.

The whole drunk can't consent argument is a fraud.

No it's legit, the whole I can't tell if she is really too drunk to fuck is a fraud. What is more most dudes aren't going to ever have that problem unless they are an idiot, which by the very same extension most women aren't going to claim their were raped because they regret it.

However if both are fucking idiots let them gamble, and let the evidence regardless to what is claimed, determine anything going forward.

If she says she was drunk, she didn't give consent, then she has to prove it.

- - - Updated - - -

Tennisace, of course.

Also, a lot of people feel drunk people can't consent, but what about drunk driving and it consequences?

Has nothing to do with them being drunk the simple fact of the matter is they killed someone, that is a lot more important than if they were drunk. However someone who drinks and drives is in a situation that can involve other people, say like a bartender that over serves.

However a bar is limited because they aren't likely to be present when said person drank and ran into someone else, meaning it was just the one person who made whatever decision and their liability is going to very much rely on varying circumstances because not everybody who drinks drives is liable for the same consequences.

Feeling that it's major blind spot in our society, drugs and alcohol. We know that these problem exist with intoxicants, but are unwilling to make the correct changes to laws that are in line with our current society. These Abrahamic puritans are really holding us back from establishing something of value.

Safe use with safe environments need to be the education, not damnation and punishment.

This woman obviously didn't use safely, in the company of strangers, was so drunk she doesn't remember exactly what happened, and with no evidence to back up her claim. If she had the education, and the ability to use in safe environment none of this would have happened.

I disagree with the idea if a woman doesn't make certain decisions others thinks she should she deserves to be raped.

[Zantos]

I have been drunk to the point that I was so dizzy and had literally NO idea wtf was going on in a bg I was in. Yet I was still able to make decisions about what I did or did not want to do and fully understand them.

Drunks can consent just fine. It may lower their standards during sex, but they are perfectly fine to make a decision. The only time it could be questioned is if they 1) cannot walk without help because 2) they Barely even know wtf is going on anymore.

Glad to see logic is finally getting through on this matter. Literally anyone can recreate being drunk and see that yes, they can indeed make a fully informed decision and understand the consequences.

[Kelathos]

I am glad evidence was asked for. But is he still fired and out of a job?

A judge has acquitted a former Halifax cab driver accused of

Damage done.

[Zantos]

I am glad evidence was asked for. But is he still fired and out of a job?



Damage done.

He is probably still fired and wont find anything else. Like you said, the damage is done. Just the accusation is enough to ensure he isn't allowed in another cab, let alone that anyone would trust him.

[Mistame]

I mean, they couldn't even demonstrate she was in his cab, much less anything else so there wasn't even a valid case to begin with. Throw in the fact that she didn't even show up. Though it's a pretty sad day when a supposed kiss on the head or butt touch is deemed "sexual assault".

Remember who you're replying to. They routinely create arguments no one is discussing so they can argue with themselves about it.

And typically, arguments no one can even understand.

[Zoreyai]

There are different levels of drunk, someone who is slightly buzzed can definitely consent. Someone who don't understand what's going on, can't.

What if both parties are hammered?

[McFuu]

Yeah, sure why the hell not.




Does the evidence support that?

Because if it does based on that same standing then yes, all things being equal. Unless you are just being facetious and you don't think either, then it really doesn't matter.

My position is a guy isn't going to do this and it won't have much impact if he could or not.



No it's legit, the whole I can't tell if she is really too drunk to fuck is a fraud. What is more most dudes aren't going to ever have that problem unless they are an idiot, which by the very same extension most women aren't going to claim their were raped because they regret it.

However if both are fucking idiots let them gamble, and let the evidence regardless to what is claimed, determine anything going forward.

If she says she was drunk, she didn't give consent, then she has to prove it.

- - - Updated - - -



Has nothing to do with them being drunk the simple fact of the matter is they killed someone, that is a lot more important than if they were drunk. However someone who drinks and drives is in a situation that can involve other people, say like a bartender that over serves.

However a bar is limited because they aren't likely to be present when said person drank and ran into someone else, meaning it was just the one person who made whatever decision and their liability is going to very much rely on varying circumstances because not everybody who drinks drives is liable for the same consequences.





I disagree with the idea if a woman doesn't make certain decisions others thinks she should she deserves to be raped.

Here's the thing, because you stated it, if the evidence shows that the rape occurred, then why is sobriety even allowed in the discussion?
If the victim was incapacitated, the mechanism of that incapacitation is completely irrelevant to the actual rape. If the victim fell from the second story and was knocked out and someone raped them, or if they got black out drunk and someone raped them, it's still rape. What's important is they were incapacitated, not how. Now if this moves into the realm of a premeditated attack, then the mechanism of the incapacitation means something, but that's because it was a tool of the attacker.

In the case of he said she said rape, sobriety means nothing unless the lack of it was forced upon the victim.
A charge of rape because someone decided they were drunk and didn't actually want to have sex with this person isn't rape. A rape never occurred, just the removal of consent afterwards. Prove that a rape occurred. Don't prove that you can't hold your alcohol.