Article content

There was a time, not so long ago, when James Francis Pritchard probably could have gotten away with his crime.

Article content

But Pritchard was convicted last week of sexual assault with a weapon, even though the Crown was unable to locate his victim, a vulnerable and likely homeless woman who, as a result, did not testify against him.

Despite this obvious major drawback to his case, Crown prosecutor Samina Dhalla was able to prove that Pritchard attacked the woman with a crowbar before forcing her to perform a sexual act.

In his futuristic novel Nineteen eighty-four (published 1949) English writer George Orwell created a dystopian society in which a totalitarian government used mass surveillance to control the behavior of the population.

Although Orwell didn’t quite understand the year or the totalitarian reasoning for such surveillance, in 2024 we are all now under the watchful eye of remote cameras almost everywhere we go.

Article content

Article content

His novel even gave us the oft-used phrase: Big Brother is watching you.

But while Orwell’s Big Brother was a sinister government operator, the surveillance society it finds itself in today is often more like an older brother looking out for our well-being.

Security cameras that captured the exchange between Pritchard and his victim, known only to a crucial witness who came to his aid and an investigator with the initials CT, captured the crime as it unfolded, allowing the Judge Brandy Shaw to find him guilty.

The Good Samaritan heard CT’s cries for help from his nearby residence and went to investigate, interrupting the sexual assault just as it was occurring and possibly saving the victim from even greater harm.

Article content

But Shaw discovered that it was closed-circuit television footage captured by nearby security cameras that allowed her to discover that CT had been attacked by Pritchard and had never consented to any sexual contact.

“The CCTV footage shows the accused and CT walking behind the building,” the Calgary Court of Justice judge said of the incident in an alley in the southwest of the city.

“The accused lowers his arm and a crowbar which had been concealed in his jacket descends into his left hand. CT moves in front of the accused. The defendant swings the crowbar with both hands, striking CT in the head and neck area, right rear. There was nothing in the video that would let CT know she was about to be hit in the back of the head. CT goes to the ground.

Article content

“On the ground, CT is rolling on his back, legs in the air, knees to his chest and left arm raised above his face, consistent with an attempt to protect his head and face. “

Shaw noted the attack continued with Pritchard hitting the woman in the arm(s) as she tried to cover her head.

“Zooming in on CT’s face, she appears to be in pain, eyes partially closed and tense with her mouth open. She holds her left arm by her body.

It is at this point that Pritchard brings his victim to his knees, forcing her into the sexual act interrupted by the Good Samaritan.

Without the footage, Shaw would not have had proof of what happened before the sexual encounter, leaving room for reasonable doubt as to the victim’s consent.

She said the video and other circumstantial evidence allowed her to conclude that the victim had not “subjectively consented” and that even if she had, it would have been forced upon her by the foot assault. -de-doe.

“During this time, CT could be heard screaming and screaming in distress…I conclude that the defendant was not only willfully blind or reckless, but was aware that CT was not consenting. »

In this case, it seems Big Brother wasn’t just watching, but watching CT.

[email protected]

X: @KMartinCourts

Article content