Quote:
Originally Posted by dissentowner
Feel free to show me an example of this. And actually it's beyond a reasonable doubt. I will wait for you to show me a case where the accused has no prior history of sexual assault, there is no physical evidence to collaborate the accusers testimony, and the judge ruled a conviction. Should be easy to find as it "happens all the time" Bonus points if you can find a case where 8 people with no prior history and no physical evidence against them deny an accusation and are found guilty against the word of one person.
|
You are simply wrong in your beliefs on this point...and I see other posters already have provided you with examples quite easily. I would add that the vast majority of criminal cases, including sexual assault, are never the subject of media or written judgments so the fact more examples are not being cited to you in no way changes the fact that it happens all the time.
Others have also correctly noted that a prior history of sexual assault would in almost every case be deemed irrelevant and highly prejudicial to a new accusation and would be kept from being known by the judge or jury deciding guilt or innocence. The main exception being if there is a specific and detailed pattern of committing the offence (modus operandi or "M.O." in tv / movie terms)
To try and still be constructive...
The word you are searching for is corroborate or corroboration. One place you can find it being used is in the current Criminal Code of Canada, section 274, under the heading "Corroboration not required":
Quote:
Corroboration not required
274 If an accused is charged with an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 160, 170, 171, 172, 173, 271, 272, 273, 286.1, 286.2 or 286.3, no corroboration is required for a conviction and the judge shall not instruct the jury that it is unsafe to find the accused guilty in the absence of corroboration.
|
So, basically, for sexual offences, corroboration is not needed and it is wrong for a judge to suggest to a jury that it is.
But wait, there's more...
In the context of whether a person could be convicted of a crime on the basis of even the inherently risky evidence of a jailhouse informant, (spoiler alert, they still can) the Supreme Court of Canada said this (back in 2009):
Quote:
Legal systems far separated in time and place have long recognized that it is dangerous to rest a criminal conviction on the testimony of a single witness, or on a single piece of evidence. This concern is at least as old as Deuteronomy.* It arises because witnesses can lie deliberately or mislead inadvertently, documents can be forged, and other items of evidence can be tampered with or planted: P. Roberts and A. Zuckerman, Criminal Evidence (2004), at p. 466.
The evidence of a single witness is nonetheless sufficient in Canada to support a conviction for any offence other than treason, perjury or procuring a feigned marriage. Many serious crimes might otherwise go unpunished. But where the guilt of the accused is made to rest exclusively or substantially on the testimony of a single witness of doubtful credit or veracity, the danger of a wrongful conviction is particularly acute.
|
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc.../2009scc4.html
How has that been playing out as of late? (since 2014):
Quote:
The Globe and Mail reviewed all sexual-assault cases heard by the Supreme Court since 2014, finding that these cases are on the rise during the Me Too era, and defence lawyers have lost 34 consecutive appeals
...
Many of the cases turned on the credibility of complainants. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that, if the judge who presided over a trial believes a complainant, appeal courts should not disturb a conviction. While that is not new law, the court has reinforced the message by rebuking some of Canada’s most experienced appellate judges, whom they view as having ignored that principle.
|
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...t-cases-metoo/
I am not saying it tells us anything about what will happen with these pending Hockey Canada allegations, but it is an interesting article worth reading and one that I think further undermines your argument.