Jian Ghomeshi no longer with CBC

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

I can't imagine Ghomeshi will take the stand either.

He has no reason to. They're not denying the events that happened. They're denying that these women didn't know it was coming and agreed to it.

[peter12]

Can someone explain to me why the prosecution can't call the defendant to the stand? I have a very "Matlock" understanding of the courtroom.

[troutman]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence#Canada

The right to silence is protected under section 7 and section 11(c) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The accused may not be compelled as a witness against himself in criminal proceedings, and therefore only voluntary statements made to police are admissible as evidence. Prior to an accused being informed of their right to legal counsel, any statements they make to police are considered involuntarily compelled and are inadmissible as evidence. After being informed of the right to counsel, the accused may choose to voluntarily answer questions and those statements would be admissible.

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right ... (c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Can someone explain to me why the prosecution can't call the defendant to the stand? I have a very "Matlock" understanding of the courtroom.

You have the right not to incriminate yourself, pleading the fifth as our American cousins put it.

[peter12]

Okay, that is what I thought. So Twitter Law is basically saying that he is going to walk?

[troutman]

We've seen before arguments that the burden of proof should be reduced in sexual assault cases. I don't think that is a good idea.

What about an argument that the right to silence be denied or reduced in sexual assault cases (where so often it is he said/she said)? Is there a reasonable limit to the rights guaranteed in Section 1 of the Charter?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by peter12

Okay, that is what I thought. So Twitter Law is basically saying that he is going to walk?

I don't know what to predict. I can see it going either way.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by peter12

Okay, that is what I thought. So Twitter Law is basically saying that he is going to walk?

It's not a slam dunk either way. What is a slam dunk is the avalanche of stupidity that will descend upon us should he be acquitted.

And Troutman, no; what is it about sexual assault cases in particular, as opposed to other crimes, that would abrogate the rights of the accused? Why would an accused be less deserving of full rights of due process by virtue of the nature of the crime in question? Why not in a murder case?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's not a slam dunk either way. What is a slam dunk is the avalanche of stupidity that will descend upon us should he be acquitted.

And Troutman, no; what is it about sexual assault cases in particular, as opposed to other crimes, that would abrogate the rights of the accused? Why would an accused be less deserving of full rights of due process by virtue of the nature of the crime in question? Why not in a murder case?

I think the only reason to consider it in a sexual assault case is is that it is almost always a he said/ she said circumstance.

My gut says probably no, that this is such an enshrined right that it should not be tampered with.

Reforms will be called for, especially if he walks.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Bad facts make bad law. Bad publicity makes bad legislation. Oh, I just can't wait...

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Okay, that is what I thought. So Twitter Law is basically saying that he is going to walk?

I think he's going to walk, if you're the judge you are looking at a succession of victims that suffered what are essentially common assaults, and showed every indication that they were ok with it, in as much as they stayed in contact and seemed happy even anxious to meet up with him again.

Short of a defendant testifying that he beat her enough to put her in hospital or raped her after a beating I can't see this going anywhere.

[GGG]

The good news about this is that in the court of public opinion most people believe what Gomeshi did was non consensual. It will be interesting to see polls afterwards. So in this case the public is protected because people are aware of what Gomeshi has likely done and his punishment in terms of status and income is already greater than what he would receive if found guilty.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

That won't satisfy people. They want the criminal justice system to vindicate their schadenfreude. If a pound of flesh is not on offer at the end of all of this, there will be hyperbolic outrage to an obscene degree.

[peter12]

Yes, CHL, those are my thoughts as well.

[peter12]

Double post.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I think he's going to walk, if you're the judge you are looking at a succession of victims that suffered what are essentially common assaults, and showed every indication that they were ok with it, in as much as they stayed in contact and seemed happy even anxious to meet up with him again.

So what if they stayed in contact with him after the alleged assaults? That doesn't mean it didn't happen. Surely you're aware how common it is for women to stay in relationships with men who are abusive to them (often believing that they are somehow at fault). The fact that they maintain a relationship with their abusers doesn't negate the abuse.

[PeteMoss]

I don't think its crazy to have things reviewed in these cases. Its well known that the vast majority of sexual assaults aren't reported. I doubt what is happening in this case is going to help that.

I'm not sure the answer - but I'm pretty confident the defense lawyer constantly repeating that this accuser gave him a hand job three or four times wasn't necessary.

[Ducay]

If I have learnt nothing else from the proceedings, this man is/was a straight player. Forget being the King of Spain, from the sounds of it, the guy was the King of Regina!

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by troutman

What about an argument that the right to silence be denied or reduced in sexual assault cases (where so often it is he said/she said)? Is there a reasonable limit to the rights guaranteed in Section 1 of the Charter?

Is there any similarity to UK law where inference can be drawn from silence?

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

So what if they stayed in contact with him after the alleged assaults? That doesn't mean it didn't happen. Surely you're aware how common it is for women to stay in relationships with men who are abusive to them (often believing that they are somehow at fault). The fact that they maintain a relationship with their abusers doesn't negate the abuse.

I was thinking about that too, but can you really argue "battered wife syndrome" for relationships that were merely causal?