Article content
Their lawyers viewed the video recording as consensual, rough, group sex between a teenage girl and three males.
And the judge who tried the two adult males engaged in this sexual activity agreed.
We apologize, but this video has failed to load.
Try refreshing your browser, or Kevin Martin: There is no exception in law that no might mean yes in certain contexts Back to video
But a three-member Alberta Court of Appeal panel this week took a different view of the video recording, in which the female is slapped and physically degraded as three men gang rape her.
Justice Brian O Ferrall called Fanning and El-Sakaan s actions barbaric.
O Ferrall said no matter what Sara did or did not consent to, the pair are criminally responsible for the savage cruelty they inflicted upon [her].
Brooker has since retired, so Fanning and El-Sakaan will go before a new judge to be sentenced. A date for that will be set at the end of this week.
To hear three of the province s top judges recognize the incident as sexual assault was life-changing news, said Sara.
Video exceedingly difficult to watch : judge
In December 2016, the three teens a 17-year-old who can only be identified as MM and two 19-year-olds, Timothy Fanning and Adham El-Sakaan began what was at first a consensual sexual encounter.
The Globe and Mail Bookmark Please log in to listen to this story. Also available in French and Mandarin. Log In Create Free Account
Getting audio file . This translation has been automatically generated and has not been verified for accuracy. Full Disclaimer
Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
In a series of sexual-assault rulings this fall, the Supreme Court has sent a message to appellate courts that they should listen to lower-court judges who believe the complainant.
The court has ruled in seven sexual-assault cases this fall, and in all seven, it has taken the side of the complainant and prosecution. In five of those cases, appeal courts had thrown out convictions registered by trial judges, saying their decisions had been unfair to the male defendants. In the other two, trial judges convicted the men and appeal-court majorities upheld the convictions.