Justice Robin Camp

Robin Camp Questions Why Rape Complainant Didn’t Deflect the Penetrating Penis

Justice Robin Camp
Justice Robin Camp

“PAIN AND SEX SOMETIMES GO TOGETHER…WHY COULDN’T YOU JUST SINK YOUR BOTTOM DOWN INTO THE BASIN SO HE COULDN’T PENETRATE YOU?”

VANCOUVER, Canada–Federal Judge Robin Camp, 64, may get kicked off the bench for subjecting a rape accuser to a bunch of really dumb questions and imagining a really dumb scenario based on no evidence presented on the record. Camp acquitted the accused rapist. However, under Canadian law, the prosecution is now getting a second bite at the apple because Camp damaged the Crown’s case so badly.

Law professors, yes you read that right, law professors were the ones who protested this judge’s behavior so much that it made them file a complaint with the Judicial Council.

There are unusual facts here. The 22 year old complainant was a hardcore drug user living on the streets and homeless at the time of the incident. The defendant was in the same situation. Both were supposedly going through detox from the hard drugs they used. The complainant admitted on the witness stand that even at the time of trial she had not kicked her weed habit and was regularly smoking weed and drinking but had stopped doing the hard drugs.  This is not your typical sexual assault/date rape type of scenario where two college kids get drunk at a party and a sexual assault is alleged.  The allegations occur in the context of a culture of homeless street people with no permanent living arrangement who wander the streets doing drugs, alcohol and partying with those drugs for continuous days at a time.  The partying (doing hard drugs, weed, alcohol, dancing, fooling around)  had been ongoing for 3 continuous days non-stop. The transcript contains the description of the incident by the complainant wherein she admits that she said this to the defendant:

Q I just want to go back to that moment in time if I could, where you say that he is
37
licking your vagina. So if you could take us through sort of exactly as best as you can
38
remember, what happens, as soon as you — he puts you on the counter, what is the
39
first thing he does to you?
40
A He puts his tongue all over my vagina and his tongue, it’s — it’s wet
and it’s like
41
sliding and he is like — the way he is licking my vagina is — is aggressively and just
22
———————————————————————————————————–
1
like continuously and he is smiling and then he — like it’s a good time like — I’m just
2
sitting there with — with no — with no — like no reaction and it’s like — and then he
3
is licking my vagina and he is like, do you like that and —
4
5
Q What did you say?
6
A No.
… Later in the testimony…
Q You told — he asked you if you liked it while he was licking your vagina, you’ve been
35
clear in saying you responded no. What happens next?
36
A And then he takes his pants off and then I tried to get off the counter and — and put
37
my pants on, I thought he was just — just going to do the — lick my vagina, then no.
38
He — he puts his — his penis inside of me. And yeah he has a big flicking penis.
39
40
Q How do you get to a place where you were trying to put your pants on and he is
41
having sex with you, can you just tell us how that happens?
23
1
A How it happens?
2
3
Q So you say you tried to put your pants back on.
4
A So I’m getting off the counter and I literally just hop off and trying to put my pants
5
back on and then he — his pants are just off and then he is like I’m going to fuck you,
6
and I was like you can’t without a condom, he is like no, and he —
The testimony prior to this was even more confusing as to consent given that the complainant had a very clear memory of many details despite having been drunk for many hours.
It is quite clear that this is a case of a complainant who did not have the capacity to give a knowing consent to the defendant’s sexual advances. Drunk consent is not consent and is therefore invalid. This is why this case became so controversial. It is evident the judge did not have the slightest understanding of how informed, knowing, non-incapacitated consent works in the criminal law. This misunderstanding of consent is what contributed mostly to the acquittal.  Even if the complainant is implying to the defendant that if he had a condom on at that moment she would then have sex with him, it does not necessarily mean this complainant had her head on straight enough to know what she was even implying.  It was crazy drunk talk. She is saying this in the context of 3 days of non-stop boozing, drugging and partying without a regular night’s sleep. Also, the defendant was in a similar mental state. So the defendant’s decision-making was also impaired. Since he was sober enough to know what he was about to do, he should have been sober enough to realize that the mixed signals of the complainant were nothing more than mixed signals, not clear consent.  Clear, unambiguous and sober consent is the only thing that counts in this type of situation. But Judge Camp did not understand that.
Read more below: