FACTS In 2005, the accused was charged with acts of indecency held in a common bawdy-house. The accused ran a club within Montréal, that permitted couples and single people to engage in group sex. The club required paid memberships, which were obtained by interviews to establish that they understood the activities that took place within. Security was in place to ensure only members were allowed in. There were three floors of the club. The first floor was a bar, the second floor was a salon and the third floor was the apartment of the accused. On the third floor, there were double doors marked “priveé” that required a numerical code to grant access. Members were given such information to allow themselves in. The third floor was the only place …show more content…
The trial judge was also concerned about social harm from the sexual exchanges. She claimed that this behaviour was indecent, due to the fact it was degrading, dehumanizing, and heightened the risks of sexually transmitted diseases. The accused appealed, which brought the case to the Quebec Court of Appeal. A majority vote upheld the findings from the judge’s conclusion, and the issue was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada (R. v. Labaye 728).
ISSUES
Should ‘indecency’ in criminal law be determined by the severity of harm or by public morality? Is criminal law apart of controlling/enforcing community ethics? Should criminal law go beyond protecting from harm to promote a certain social standard? Is there an agreement of belief on what makes something indecent? What role should personal experience and personal morals of the judge, police and lawyers have when determining how to handle conduct such as consensual, safe group sex?
DECISION
The Supreme Court of Canada found that because members were consensual and no physical or psychological harm was done to individuals participating, the majority couldn’t find adequate amounts of harm, nor