Court worked as it's designed to in the Hockey Canada case. That's the problem, survivors and lawyers say
Court worked as it's designed to in the Hockey Canada case. That's the problem, survivors and lawyers say
You're viewing a single thread.
14 comments
-
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'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The victim may have consented at first however if consent was revoked during sexual activity then it becomes sexual assault.
-
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.
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
-
-
14 comments