Court worked as it's designed to in the Hockey Canada case. That's the problem, survivors and lawyers say
-
I am completely unfamiliar with the Canadian judicial system so I hope someone can help explain!
If 4 of the 5 players declined to testify, no matter the verdict, isn’t that a lot of relevant testimony missing to reach verdict? Two thirds of the alleged parties involved had nothing to say. Considering the victim in this case was in the witness box for something like 9 days, it’s a little confusing in my eyes to not even have them testify for 20 minutes.
Like some other jurisdictions, Canada has protections against self-incrimination.
Any person charged with an offence has the right … not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence …
-
I am completely unfamiliar with the Canadian judicial system so I hope someone can help explain!
If 4 of the 5 players declined to testify, no matter the verdict, isn’t that a lot of relevant testimony missing to reach verdict? Two thirds of the alleged parties involved had nothing to say. Considering the victim in this case was in the witness box for something like 9 days, it’s a little confusing in my eyes to not even have them testify for 20 minutes.
Because she/they made the complaint and prosecuted it. The onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant is guilty of the charges.
The defense need not nor should not be required to lift a finger unless their lawyers saw the need for it. The stand is always a huge risk and theres plenty of opportunity to poke holes in the case since the prosecution basically had to put her on the stand in order for the case to have any credibillity
-
This post did not contain any content.
It’s easily the weakest case ever put forth attempting prosecution in Canada. Pure disgrace attempting to cash in on the 51% majority in the court of public opinion.
A legal embarassment. -
It’s easily the weakest case ever put forth attempting prosecution in Canada. Pure disgrace attempting to cash in on the 51% majority in the court of public opinion.
A legal embarassment.I’ve heard a few analysts say that the verdict is not a surprise. I’m not a lawyer, care to explain why you consider this case weak?
-
I’ve heard a few analysts say that the verdict is not a surprise. I’m not a lawyer, care to explain why you consider this case weak?
I’m not a lawyer either, but reading the judge’s verdict, it sounds like the only evidence the prosecution had was the woman’s testimony. The defence had video recordings of the women verbally consenting. Kinda hard to prove beyond a doubt that the woman did not consent when it’s on video. Not that some non-consenting stuff didn’t happen when the video was turned off but again, a guilty verdict requires no doubt.
That’s what the CBC article is about. How sexual assault victims often don’t come forward since securing a conviction is incredibly difficult on testimony alone.
-
This post did not contain any content.
The NDP has brain worms when it came to this issue. They seemingly hate men which is ironic given the party of supposed diversity.
-
I’m not a lawyer either, but reading the judge’s verdict, it sounds like the only evidence the prosecution had was the woman’s testimony. The defence had video recordings of the women verbally consenting. Kinda hard to prove beyond a doubt that the woman did not consent when it’s on video. Not that some non-consenting stuff didn’t happen when the video was turned off but again, a guilty verdict requires no doubt.
That’s what the CBC article is about. How sexual assault victims often don’t come forward since securing a conviction is incredibly difficult on testimony alone.
The defence had video recordings of the women verbally consenting
I haven’t followed this casenor seen the evidence that was provided by either the Crown or the Defence. However, the Supreme Court confirmed in R. v. J.A., 2011 SCC 28 (CanLII), [2011] 2 SCR 440 that consent for sexual activity requires ongoing consent.
[65] In the end, we are left with this. Parliament has defined sexual assault as sexual touching without consent. It has dealt with consent in a way that makes it clear that ongoing, conscious and present consent to “the sexual activity in question” is required. This concept of consent produces just results in the vast majority of cases. It has proved of great value in combating the stereotypes that historically have surrounded consent to sexual relations and undermined the law’s ability to address the crime of sexual assault. In some situations, the concept of consent Parliament has adopted may seem unrealistic. However, it is inappropriate for this Court to carve out exceptions when they undermine Parliament’s choice. In the absence of a constitutional challenge, the appropriate body to alter the law on consent in relation to sexual assault is Parliament, should it deem this necessary.
The victim may have consented at first however if consent was revoked during sexual activity then it becomes sexual assault.
-
I am completely unfamiliar with the Canadian judicial system so I hope someone can help explain!
If 4 of the 5 players declined to testify, no matter the verdict, isn’t that a lot of relevant testimony missing to reach verdict? Two thirds of the alleged parties involved had nothing to say. Considering the victim in this case was in the witness box for something like 9 days, it’s a little confusing in my eyes to not even have them testify for 20 minutes.
Section 11
of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms confirms that defendants cannot be compelled to testify in their own matter. It’s Canada’s verision of the right to remain silent.A witness can be compelled to testify however their testimony can’t be used against them in other proceeding except for prejury charges. This is found in section 13 of the Charter.
Ultimately, it’s up to the Crown to prove their case. It all comes back to being innocent before proven guilty. Section 11(d) of the Charter.
If you were to flip it all around, you would be considered guilty until proven innocent, you would always have to testify, and any witnesses that could help you would be open to being charged. In that scenario, good luck at not ending up in jail. The vast majority of defendants don’t have the resources to take on the State in a criminal matter.
-
The defence had video recordings of the women verbally consenting
I haven’t followed this casenor seen the evidence that was provided by either the Crown or the Defence. However, the Supreme Court confirmed in R. v. J.A., 2011 SCC 28 (CanLII), [2011] 2 SCR 440 that consent for sexual activity requires ongoing consent.
[65] In the end, we are left with this. Parliament has defined sexual assault as sexual touching without consent. It has dealt with consent in a way that makes it clear that ongoing, conscious and present consent to “the sexual activity in question” is required. This concept of consent produces just results in the vast majority of cases. It has proved of great value in combating the stereotypes that historically have surrounded consent to sexual relations and undermined the law’s ability to address the crime of sexual assault. In some situations, the concept of consent Parliament has adopted may seem unrealistic. However, it is inappropriate for this Court to carve out exceptions when they undermine Parliament’s choice. In the absence of a constitutional challenge, the appropriate body to alter the law on consent in relation to sexual assault is Parliament, should it deem this necessary.
The victim may have consented at first however if consent was revoked during sexual activity then it becomes sexual assault.
Definitely! That’s why I said it’s possible non-consenting stuff took place after the video ends. It’s entirely possible, but people don’t go to jail because it’s possible they committed a crime.
I also don’t believe that the Crown even argued that consent was revoked. I believe their argument was she was too drunk to consent so what she said in the video doesn’t matter. Again, possible, but they couldn’t prove that beyond a doubt.
-
I’m not a lawyer either, but reading the judge’s verdict, it sounds like the only evidence the prosecution had was the woman’s testimony. The defence had video recordings of the women verbally consenting. Kinda hard to prove beyond a doubt that the woman did not consent when it’s on video. Not that some non-consenting stuff didn’t happen when the video was turned off but again, a guilty verdict requires no doubt.
That’s what the CBC article is about. How sexual assault victims often don’t come forward since securing a conviction is incredibly difficult on testimony alone.
Just a nitpick, but the legal term is beyond a reasonable doubt. So if 5 people see me do something, there’s no reasonable doubt. But if 5 people see me do something, I have an identical twin, and a couple people who actually know me were hanging out with me somewhere else, well maybe those other 5 people saw my hypothetical twin.
-
The NDP has brain worms when it came to this issue. They seemingly hate men which is ironic given the party of supposed diversity.
What’s the NDP to do with this trial or you mean in general in the context of sexual assault prosecution?
-
I’m not a lawyer either, but reading the judge’s verdict, it sounds like the only evidence the prosecution had was the woman’s testimony. The defence had video recordings of the women verbally consenting. Kinda hard to prove beyond a doubt that the woman did not consent when it’s on video. Not that some non-consenting stuff didn’t happen when the video was turned off but again, a guilty verdict requires no doubt.
That’s what the CBC article is about. How sexual assault victims often don’t come forward since securing a conviction is incredibly difficult on testimony alone.
Eh a women consenting when surrounded by six guys might not be true though. I mean you can’t imagine a woman being in that situation thinking she should consent or get hurt.
-
I’m not a lawyer either, but reading the judge’s verdict, it sounds like the only evidence the prosecution had was the woman’s testimony. The defence had video recordings of the women verbally consenting. Kinda hard to prove beyond a doubt that the woman did not consent when it’s on video. Not that some non-consenting stuff didn’t happen when the video was turned off but again, a guilty verdict requires no doubt.
That’s what the CBC article is about. How sexual assault victims often don’t come forward since securing a conviction is incredibly difficult on testimony alone.
The defence had video recordings of the women verbally consenting …
after the fact.
Nobody can legally consent to anything afterwards. Consent is strictly beforehand, not later to cover someone’s ass.
