A man who intentionally pierced his condom during intercourse does not deserve prison time because he did not “force” the women and they initially consented, according to the defense. The Crown intends to seek a four-year prison sentence.
Posted at 12:58 p.m.
William Bernard Martin sexually assaulted two sex workers at an erotic massage parlor in Montreal in 2020. The women initially assumed that the condom had broken accidentally during the relationship – initially amicably. However, this was actually the defendant's course of action. It is not known how he punctured the condom during sex.
His defense in court was surprising: he cited the impressive size of his penis as an explanation for the repeated breaking of condoms. A version rejected by the judge.
The 31-year-old Frenchman was found guilty last February of two counts of sexual assault and three counts of obtaining sexual services for payment.
Comments on the verdict were scheduled to take place at the Montreal courthouse on Wednesday. However, the defense attorney, Me Robert Bellefeuille, requested a postponement so that reports could be prepared. The lawyer said he was surprised by the four-year prison sentence requested by the prosecution as he planned to request a community (home) prison sentence.
To justify such a sentence, Me Bellefeuille gave an overview of his arguments. He explained that “there is consent[ait] first” between his client and the victims. However, the Supreme Court has already ruled that sabotaging or removing a condom during initially consensual sexual relations effectively revokes consent.
The criminologist put forward another rather astonishing argument. “It is still a different circumstance, it is not about a person sleeping with their ex-partner and forcing a sexual relationship. “This is not the same case,” Me Bellefeuille argued.
In the Kirkpatrick decision, which concerns the use of condoms, the Supreme Court recalled in 2022 that the definition of “real rape” as “physical violence that goes beyond the violence of non-consensual contact” is a myth.
In an interview with La Presse, the lawyer denied spreading myths and stereotypes. “I’m relying on the Supreme Court,” he replied, referring to the Kirkpatrick decision. The lack of “physical violence” in the case was important for the choice of “sentencing framework,” he continued.
“It has nothing to do with the plaintiff’s work. But there is consent. OK. […] What is his responsibility? [à l’accusé] ? She agrees. There is a payment. At some point, at the very end, because the complainant…” Me Bellefeuille argued in an interview.
In court, Me Bellefeuille also appeared to downplay the impact of the crime on one of the victims, casually quoting his testimony about the impact of the crime. “There is no physical or economic impact,” he told the judge.
When called to clarify his remarks, he explained this to La Presse, but without finishing his thoughts: “She clearly says that it has no physical impact or after-effects. Right down to the emotional level. If we get into what became emotional for her, which I understood…”
The defense said the sentence demanded by the Crown was “too high.” The suspended sentence was particularly appropriate because William Bernard Martin lost his job after the verdict, explained Me Bellefeuille. His work visa expires next year.
“We were prepared to proceed,” Crown prosecutor Me Laurence-Fanny L'Estage said. Judge André Perreault ultimately approved the preparation of a pre-sentence report with a sexological component. The sentencing hearings will take place next July.