Episode Details

Sponsored by EasyDNS [https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord](https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord) How should courts treat an accused person’s post-offence behaviour apologies, emotional reactions, “weird” texts, or even what looks like a confession without turning normal human messiness into “consciousness of guilt”? Joseph, Diana, and the crew break down the guardrails around after-the-fact conduct and why context is everything, especially in sexual assault cases. They walk through three fresh decisions: Townsend (2025 BCCA 459) on the danger of leaping to guilt from a volatile reaction (and the appellate correction when alternative explanations weren’t properly weighed), JA (2025 ONSC 4531) on how chaotic teen/young-adult texting can be misread as admissions when there’s no clear denial, and PG (2025 ONSC 7018) the “Godly Conduct Agreement” case where highly religious language that sounds like a confession is ultimately understood as moral guilt and inner turmoil, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The through-line: if you don’t rigorously test other plausible explanations, post-offence conduct becomes a shortcut to wrongful inferences.