A former teacher who has been charged with telecommunicating to lure a child under 18, took the stand the fourth day of his criminal trial in Kelowna's provincial court, and said that he feels his messages have been misinterpreted. 

"The conversation was inappropriate for sure," said Jeffrey Allan Jennens, a former alternative education teacher at Rutland Secondary School (RSS) while on the stand.

"I was worried they would take it out of context, and they did."

Jennens claims that the Instagram conversation he had with a former RSS student, who he told the court viewed him in a paternal role, were "sexual but not flirtatious," and specified repeatedly that he never intend to groom or lure the student. Instead, Jennens told the court that wanted to warn the Grade 11 student about the dangers of posting inappropriate content online after noticing they had posted a suggestive photo on Instagram. 

The identity of the student, who was 17 at the time of the alleged offence, is protected by a publication ban and they be referred to as A.P. in this story. 

On the stand, Jennens confirmed he sent the first message to A.P. on May 12, asking if they were going partying that evening or staying home. Jennens said he felt as though the student had something they wanted to tell him, so he suggested the conversation be deleted in the near future. Jennens testified that it was the student who turned on the vanish mode feature.

Vanish mode is a setting on Instagram messenger that deletes messages after the conversation is exited. Before the messages were automatically deleted, A.P. screen-shotted the conversation and shared them with their friends and the police, prompting the investigation that led to Jennens' arrest days later, in May 2023. 

Jennens told the court that after engaging vanish mode, the student shared "intense" and dark, but not sexual, thoughts with him and testified that some messages from the conversation are missing.

The court heard that Jennens then sent a message referencing a photo A.P. had posted to their Instagram story days prior, in which his former student was "basically naked," in a foggy bathroom mirror after having exited the shower.

A.P. responded to the comment by saying that they didn't think the teacher would look at their story.

Jennens then sent what he concedes are inappropriate messages about the photo, body and clothing choices of the student.

"Your shower story turned me on a lot," wrote Jennens to the 17 year-old. 

Jennens also messaged: "I like it when you touch my knee", and made statements about wanting to see the student's naked body. He also told them what kind of clothing he likes to see them wear and stated that he was currently in a hot tub without a bathing suit on. Jennens also told the court that at the time of messaging, he had consumed more alcohol than he typically drinks.

Jennens alleges he was simply trying to convey to the student that the photos were inappropriate and should not be posted online as "adults like these things," but did not get a chance to fully explain his point as he found that A.P. seemed to be disengaging from the conversation.

"I wasn't able to get out what I wanted to say. It is sexual, but my approach was off," said Jennens about the messages he sent. 

After noticing the student had stopped responding, Jennens asked if they could keep their conversation a secret, and requested confirmation from A.P. multiple times.

Jennens testified that in his time as A.P.'s alternative education teacher, he had assumed a parental role and would drive them to places like work, helped them purchase a new bike, and offered mentorship.

During cross examination by Crown, Jennens testified that he had contact with two other students via Instagram prior to the incident, but that he did not use the social media platform regularly and does not fully understand how it works. 

Jennens' testimony comes after Judge Cathie Heinrichs dismissed a no-evidence motion put forward by his lawyers on April 2. His lawyers suggested to Judge Heinrichs that while Jennens' actions were inappropriate, there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction of child luring and called for the case to be dismissed. 

Judge Heinrichs instead dismissed the motion and stated that there is "some evidence that a decision maker might use to infer the subjective factor at the conclusion of the trial."

The plaintiff, the police who were involved in Jennens' arrest and officers from the Kelowna Sex Crimes Unit have already taken the stand, called by Crown as witnesses in the trial. Jennens will be the only witness called by defence. 

Video of a police interview with Jennens following his arrest was played for the court on April 1 and was subject to a voir dire, a trial within a trial to determine if the evidence is admissible in court. Judge Heinrichs ruled the interview shall be placed into evidence, saying the testimony to police was voluntary.

In the video, Jennens told police he "had nothing to hide." He also stated he willingly gave police the passcode to his iPhone and was cooperative in their investigation. 

Court will reconvene for closing statements on April 14.