Canadian Guilty of Sexual Assault After Piercing the Condoms;_ylt=AqmC9GlQutvj3rmSH4i4XQvQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTBsMDM3a2wyBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwM0BHNlYwNzcg–

The Supreme Court of Canada on Friday upheld the sexual assault conviction of a Nova Scotia man for poking holes in his condoms before having consensual sex with his girlfriend in order to try to make her pregnant.

Craig Jaret Hutchinson’s girlfriend, whose name the court has protected, said she had agreed to sex as long as it was with a condom so that she would not get pregnant…

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and Justice Thomas Cromwell wrote in arguments joined by two other justices. The other three judges came to a similar conclusion by a different legal route.

Hutchinson, who had been out on bail, will now have to serve an 18-month prison sentence…

Eleven days later, the woman underwent an abortion

The judgment was by their Supreme Court and I guess many were concerned about how the court would decide because of HIV.

This guy is a deceitful slime, and I hope he receives due justice.

I agree this is deceitful, but how is consensual sex assault? If you don’t want to get pregnant and you consent to sex, you are being really foolish.

Condoms have a pretty high failure rate without any manipulation. The campaign to call sex with condoms “safe sex” is totally deceitful.

She consented to sex with a condom, she didn’t consent to using a pierced condom. That’s what makes it assault… He did something she didn’t consent to.

Condoms have a failure rate of about 12%, which isn’t too terribly high, and depends on factors such as correct usage, proper storage, age of the condom. Generally they call it “safer sex” nowadays, because there is still a risk but it’s better than no condom at all.

It’s not consent if the facts are withheld.

There is precedent. If someone informs me they are HIV positive I can consent to have sex with them, with or without a condom. It’s my fully informed decision to make.

Should the same person knowingly avoid telling me he’s HIV positive then I can’t make a free decision and he can be charged with and convicted of aggravated sexual assault and attempted murder.

I wonder how many men will start crying “rape” when the chick they’re with gets pregnant.

The world we live in today… really people?

Yes this guys is untrustworthy and in need of serious repentance but for more than attempting to impregnate an unwilling mother. These two people who are probably my age or younger have consented to fornication (mortal sin) and used contraception (mortal sin) and the girl is upset because she only consented to one mortal sin if he would also commit the other one. Yes considering they are both non-catholics (maybe) and are not subject to Canon law nor Catholic morality they deserve a chance to make theor case. However lets not forget that more than one injustice has been comitted here in this one event.

I was wondering the same thing. By the logic of this ruling a girl who tells a guy she’s on the pill when she isn’t is guilty of sexual assault too.

My mind went to the same question. In both situations, the plaintiff would be claiming theey were tricked into becoming a parent.

The big difference is that the guy wouldn’t carry the burden of pregnancy, unlike in this case. On the other hand, he would be potentially liable for child support.

I would guess that the courts in Canada will eventually have to resolve that question.

Since she is guilty of sexual assault, why should a male have to pay for support of that child. This law needs to be equal.

I wonder if they could have gotten a conviction here in the States? They would have had to produce the damaged condom as evidence. I think he would have walked without it.

Besides that, getting someone pregnant to save the “relationship” is one of the oldest tricks in the book. :rolleyes:


They didn’t have to prove anything, he confessed to her what he had done and THEN she went to the police.

This brings up a question. How can anyone who agrees to sex with condoms ever be sure that their partner isn’t going to do this? It shows that nothing is safer than celibacy.

Good point.

Unless he also confessed to the police or was recorded, it would simply be hearsay and inadmissible as evidence in the US.

Reading the article shows that he confessed by text message after they had broken up. That is, he wrote to her urging her not to use her leftover condoms because he’d sabotaged them.

So if you consent to sex and your partner lies by telling you they are infertile, but later a baby is produced, is that now sexual assault?

In such a scenario sexual assault has very little to do with the act, and much more to do with the level of knowledge of possible procreation.

I think it is a very dangerous step to start defining sexual assault on whether a baby is or can be produced, or can knowingly be produced.

I do not think it is helpful that the ‘wrong’ committed here should be defined under the term ‘sexual assault’.

This case actually makes legal sense.

Remember assault does not have to mean someone was thrashed. If I, without your consent, slap you in the face, technically, I have committed an assault. Remember that under many common law jurisdictions (but not England and Wales) assault is any intentional physical contact with a person without their consent. It is also assault If you sleep with someone you are led to believe is one person (say, a spouse) but is instead a stranger. This would qualify by analogy, because the defendant failed to disclose a pertinent quality about him, in this instance, that he had a condom on… well you know. (by the way, this sort of prosecution is historically not new, but arose out of the canon law tradition). Here, the defendant through subterfuge attempted to get the prosecutrix pregnant, and succeeded.

For one of the rare moments of my life: I concur with the majority; if I were a judge I would likely find the same way.

My reading skills seem to be really lacking today. :blush:

I wasn’t being sarcastic, I hadn’t read this particular article either. The case has been wending its way through the Courts for a long time – since 2006 – and I was just aware that he had confessed. After your comment I went to read this and other articles to see if he’d actually confessed to the police and that’s how I found out that he had confessed in writing – not exactly a lawyer’s dream client.

In his first trial he was acquitted although the judge called his actions ‘dastardly’. The Crown appealed and he was convicted in 2011 at his second trial. They appealed the sentence at the Nova Scotia Supreme Court which rejected the appeal but since the decision was not unanimous he could automatically appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, with the latest results.

The judgment was by their Supreme Court and I guess many were concerned about how the court would decide because of HIV.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit