R Vs Khan Case Analysis

906 Words2 Pages

INTRODUCTION: Although the approaches to sexual assault cases have been extensively debated about, there have been significant evidentiary law reforms to address the discriminatory treatment of complainants in sexual assault cases based in criminal law. Canada has one of the most progressive sexual assault laws in the world. However, we continue to see fewer individuals turning to the courts for justice. Although there has been significant change, notwithstanding these reforms, problematic aspects of exploitation and perpetuating stereotypes in cases of sexual assault in defence of the complainant continues. The complainant is more vulnerable than the accused because of discriminatory lawyering, which is important to the R v Khan case. REFLECTION: …show more content…

The Khan case is an example in which there is an “irresistible knowledge of [guilt],” where the complainant’s evidence is corroborated and the defence theory is deemed improbable, bordering on the absurd or grounded in stereotypes about consent. In R v Khan, the idea that a three year old was considered incompetent to give unsworn evidence and could not testify was not something that is too remote for counsel to ethically argue. However, Dr. Khan’s lawyer did attempt to raise speculations on the origins of the semen stain on the complainant’s clothes. His lawyer argued that Dr. Khan kept sperm samples in his office and the child could have accidentally came into contact with the sperm, and subsequently attempted to wipe it off with saliva from her mouth. This raises the question of whether it is truly ethical for his lawyer to have put out such a speculative and incredible theory. The trial judge, however, concluded that this theory was not that farfetched or unreasonable, thus Khan was acquitted on the trial …show more content…

Khan and his counsel, the ethics remain the same. This theory has the potential of putting the victim at harm if the complainant had been permitted to testify and the accidental contact theory was put to her in cross-examination. This theory can be detrimental to the complainant because a cross-examination can go for days, forcing the victim to relive the assault that occurred in minutes, and potentially experience re-victimization in that respect. By putting such implausible theories into the court goes against the lawyer’s obligation to advocate in good faith and not mislead the

More about R Vs Khan Case Analysis

Open Document