In a 5-4 decision today, the high court says that “no, no without a condom” should not be taken to mean “yes, without a condom” in a courtroom. A court has ordered a new trial in a British Columbia case in which a complainant told a new sex partner, Ross McKenzie Kirkpatrick, that she would only have sex with him if he wore a condom. The fact that Kirkpatrick used a condom the first time they had sex led the complainant to assume he was already wearing one when they started having sex the second time, he told the court – but he didn’t, which he said he didn’t realize. until he ejaculated. The sexual assault charge against Kirkpatrick was dismissed by a judge, who found there was no evidence the complainant had not consented to “the sexual activity in question”, nor that the accused was an outright deceiver, which would have been another way to convict . Although the reasons for its decision are divided, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed with the BC Court of Appeal’s decision that the judge erred in not finding evidence. Our Morning Update and Afternoon Update newsletters are written by Globe editors, giving you a concise summary of the day’s most important headlines. Sign up today.
