After a three-day long trial in 麻豆精选 provincial courts, the defence lawyers representing a former teacher charged with telecommunicating to lure a child under 18, have filed a motion to have the entire case dismissed due to lack of evidence specific to the charge.
The former Rutland Senior Secondary (RSS) teacher Jeffery Allan Jennens has pleaded not guilty to the charges of child luring following an incident that unfolded in May 2023, claiming that the situation was a "miscommunication."
In court on April 2, Jennens' lawyers applied for a no-evidence motion, which if granted, would result in a dismissal of the case. They alleged that while inappropriate, the messages sent by Jennens to a Grade 11 RSS student do not meet the specific threshold for a conviction of child luring.
The plaintiff, whose identity is protected under a publication ban, the police who were involved in Jennens' arrest and officers from the 麻豆精选 Sex Crimes Unit have already taken the stand as witnesses in the trial.
While Jennens has not yet been called to the stand as a witness, a video of his interview with police officers following his arrest was played for the court on April 1.
The video was played as part of a voir-dire, which can be thought of as a mini-trial within the trial to determine the admissibility of pieces of evidence and will not necessarily be used by the judge when making their verdict. While the video was played for the court and its transcripts can be published, if the judge finds that Jennens' admissions to police during the interrogation were not voluntary, due to an unfair or coercive environment, the video will not be entered into as evidence and will therefore not influence the judge's verdict.
In the video, played for the court, Jennens told officers that he had been communicating with the student over Instagram regarding school-related issues. The former teacher said he had been communicating with the student using the vanish mode feature on Instagram, meaning the messages disappear and are deleted after a user logs off.
The court heard Jennens tell officers that the conversation with the plaintiff shifted away from school-related issues after the student posted what was described as "basically naked" photos of themselves on Instagram.
Jennens told police that when he messaged the student that he was "turned on" by the photo, among other things, and he explained he was simply trying to convey to the student that the photos were inappropriate and should not be posted online. Jennens also allegedly wrote: "Your shower story turned me on a lot", "I like it when you touch my knee", and made statements about wanting to see the student's naked body.
The accused told the officer conducting the interview that the entire context of his communications with the student needed to be examined, because, "If you look at it from one snapshot, I'm f."
While on the stand as a witness earlier in the trial, the student told the court that Jennens had repeatedly asked them to keep the conversations a secret. The student took screenshots of the messages before they were deleted and later shared them with the RCMP, prompting the investigation by the 麻豆精选 Sex Crimes Unit.
After Crown Counsel concluded their presentation of evidence on April 2, Jennens' lawyers applied for a no-evidence motion. The motion calls for the case to be dismissed on the grounds of insufficient evidence to specifically support a conviction of child luring.
Defence argued that while Jennens' messages to the victim were inappropriate, they did not meet the Criminal Code of Canada's definition of telecommunicating to lure a child under 18.
The Criminal Code of Canada states that "Every person commits an offence who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person, who is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency or who is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person."
The defence lawyers argued that although there is no dispute that Jennens was in a position of trust and authority, the plaintiff was not in a relationship of dependence with the teacher, nor did Jennens exploit the student.
Crown responded by telling the court that messages do not need to be sexually explicit in order to fall under the realm of grooming and child luring.
After a nearly three-hour lunch break, the court reconvened and the judge stated that she had not yet made a decision on the no-evidence motion.
The trial will continue on April 3. If the judge denies the no-evidence motion, Jennens is expected to take the stand.
