the story. In part:
The defence argued that [Cpl. Stephanie] Raymond consented to the sex or had at least behaved in such a way that [Warrant Officer Andre] Gagnon had a “sincere” but “erroneous” belief she had agreed to it.
The prosecution service is arguing that the court martial judge erred in law when he allowed the jury to consider that defence.Canadian readers: does this sound like a viable appeal?