Hart, McLeod, Dube, Foote, Formenton found not guilty of sexual assault

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Why treat this as a team sport? Why does anyone need to "rally behind" a "side"?

IMO it's tone deaf to not look at the wide array of facts and complexity in this case, enough that it dismissed two juries, and want to create teams or camps. Also pretty damn selective to want to allow criminals to rehabilitate unless they were formerly rich and famous? or part of specific subculture? Or maybe it's specific crimes only? I question the motivation.

This has been gone over before, but rehabilitation, second chances, etc don’t mean the complete restoration of the opportunity they had before. Saying you don’t know why people would care whether these guys go back to earning millions of dollars in the biggest league in the world is not the same as saying you don’t believe in rehabilitation and second chances. Not even close.

[InternationalVillager]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Why treat this as a team sport? Why does anyone need to "rally behind" a "side"?

IMO it's tone deaf to not look at the wide array of facts and complexity in this case, enough that it dismissed two juries, and want to create teams or camps. Also pretty damn selective to want to allow criminals to rehabilitate unless they were formerly rich and famous? or part of specific subculture? Or maybe it's specific crimes only? I question the motivation.

Quoting because this is how I feel as well. There are a few individuals that see this has a black & white issue. I don't think I can decide in either direction with clear conviction. And as such, if they were found not guilty, I would have no issue with them pursuing a NHL career again. It's their livelihood- a short window at that to maximize their lifetime earnings. It's not all that likely they will have a meaningful career after their hockey window closes.

Carter Hart - for example - has already lost millions and the prime of his hockey career. There will be nothing that he can do to get that back even if found Not Guilty. So how is that not punishment enough?

Dillon Dube has likely lose his entire NHL career as I don't think he can really come back from this under than maybe as a minimum player.

For me, this is all a very gray area and not one easy to decipher.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

Carter Hart - for example - has already lost millions and the prime of his hockey career. There will be nothing that he can do to get that back even if found Not Guilty. So how is that not punishment enough?

Punishment enough for what? For rape? No it's not enough.

Did he rape her? You said yourself you find it gray. Some people believe he did. In that case it isn't enough. Others believe he did no wrong. In which case he shouldn't be punished.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by MBates

You were doing so well...and then messed it up!

As a matter of law, a sleeping person cannot consent to sexual touching at that moment (they are unconscious) and advance consent is not permitted (based on the current Criminal Code definitions of consent as per R v JA) and the person being ok with it after the fact is legally irrelevant.

You could not claim you had an honest mistaken belief in communicated consent because Canadian law says it is a mistake of law, not fact, to believe you could sexually touch someone you knew was sleeping based on them telling you they were good with it.

So you could get a partner to confirm in advance they have no issue with being kissed (or other sexual touching) as a way to wake them up and you could always stay fully within what they told you they were ok with, and they can never feel as though they were violated and you have nevertheless committed a sexual assault with no defence in law if you ever got charged.

Isn’t this taking it to an illogical conclusion, which R vs JA already covered in addressing the dissenting opinions?

“If you ever got charged” implies it wasn’t consensual. But if your partner has no issue with it, never feels they were violated, and never brings a charge because they believe it was consensual, you didn’t commit a sexual assault.

Committing a sexual assault requires the victim to at least believe it was non consensual at some point and want to bring a charge.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Titan2

Does this not make it a strict liability offence? If you commit the act, it does not matter what your intent was; if the victim considers it an assault, then it is an assault. This cannot be the standard in a criminal case. Yet here we are. Has this element of the offence ever been tested? While I hear what you are saying and have not read JA yet, that can't be the state of the law if it can result in imprisonment. What am I missing?

The mens rea element is the intent to touch. If you accidentally touch someone, it isn't assault.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Isn’t this taking it to an illogical conclusion, which R vs JA already covered in addressing the dissenting opinions?

“If you ever got charged” implies it wasn’t consensual. But if your partner has no issue with it, never feels they were violated, and never brings a charge because they believe it was consensual, you didn’t commit a sexual assault.

Committing a sexual assault requires the victim to at least believe it was non consensual at some point and want to bring a charge.

Not really. The only relevant time period is when the touching happens. If the person being touched consents during that time, it is not an assault. It is certainly possibly (and indeed happens sometimes) that a complainant c9ns3nt3d during the touching and then later decides to lie about that (and state that they did not consent) to the police or the court.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Isn’t this taking it to an illogical conclusion, which R vs JA already covered in addressing the dissenting opinions?

“If you ever got charged” implies it wasn’t consensual. But if your partner has no issue with it, never feels they were violated, and never brings a charge because they believe it was consensual, you didn’t commit a sexual assault.

Committing a sexual assault requires the victim to at least believe it was non consensual at some point and want to bring a charge.

Not according to R v JA.

The Crown charges, not the victim. And while it wouldn't be the first time a witness recanted a statement (obviously occurring often in domestic violence incidents), by the time this got to trial the victim alleged it was consensual agreed upon. Didn't matter to the majority.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Committing a sexual assault requires the victim to at least believe it was non consensual at some point and want to bring a charge.

And obviously while I believe these are morally on complete different level; even if a 15 year think it's fine, they can't do stuff with a 30 year old.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/...0takes%20place.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Not according to R v JA.

The Crown charges, not the victim. And while it wouldn't be the first time a witness recanted a statement (obviously occurring often in domestic violence incidents), by the time this got to trial the victim alleged it was consensual agreed upon. Didn't matter to the majority.

There are other circumstances where a victim may have wanted to consent to the sexual touch but are incapable, at law, of consenting. For example, a young person is legally incapable of consenting to sexual activity with an adult.

[IliketoPuck]

The discrepancies between the inadmissible text chain and the story being told by Hart under oath is quite stark, and Hart is clearly very well prepared by his lawyers.

I understand why the text chain can't be admitted as evidence. It still doesn't change the logic that (exaggeration inherent to a 19 year old boys group chat notwithstanding), something happened that night that more closely aligned with E.M.'s story than the players one.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Not according to R v JA.

The Crown charges, not the victim. And while it wouldn't be the first time a witness recanted a statement (obviously occurring often in domestic violence incidents), by the time this got to trial the victim alleged it was consensual agreed upon. Didn't matter to the majority.

OK, but it would never get to the point of a charge or an investigation if the “victim” felt it was consensual and never brought it forward.

These conclusions assume a claim of non-consent, and consent under the law only applies in that circumstance. That’s not what we’re talking about. People have to apply some logic here, the judges in R vs JA said as much.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

But keep going to bat for the boys.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

OK, but it would never get to the point of a charge or an investigation if the “victim” felt it was consensual and never brought it forward.

You can say that about nearly every crime ever though. MBates said, as a matter of law. That's what it is.

I don't think anyone is really advocating for cops to start cracking down on people being woken up with a blowjob, but in theory it's a crime.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

The discrepancies between the inadmissible text chain and the story being told by Hart under oath is quite stark, and Hart is clearly very well prepared by his lawyers.

I understand why the text chain can't be admitted as evidence. It still doesn't change the logic that (exaggeration inherent to a 19 year old boys group chat notwithstanding), something happened that night that more closely aligned with E.M.'s story than the players one.

This is where the Judge, though, gets to examine and evaluate the "credibility" of each witness. And yes, it's a "she said".."they said"...situation. But there is enough of the "they said" that HAS been admitted to evidence for the Judge (possibly) to make an evaluation that:


The men all are doing the bro thing, stand-together-with-our-story bit but are not credible and should be convicted;
or
The men, though, somewhat non-credible, are credible "enough" to outweigh the complainant's story (which nonetheless may be fully credible) and acquit them in whole or part;
or
The complainant's story is fully non-credible and the men are, so acquit;
or
The Prosecution, regardless of credibility, has failed to advance enough evidence to convict;
or
(Probably another dozen scenarios).

[MBates]

I will put the caveat on this comment that I realize we are only being given what the reporters can summarize and get out to us, and none of us know what else is in the lawyers' files that might be influencing their decisions...but for the life of me I cannot understand why the Crown would tender statements of the accused to police knowing that in each case they deny wrongdoing not only for themselves but in some respects for the other accused as well.

The law requires that the exculpatory aspects of the recorded statements be weighed as evidence in the same manner as if the accused had testified. In other words the accused get their story and denials considered by the judge without even having to take the stand and be subjected to cross-examination.

According to CBC, McLeod's lawyer specifically cited the recording in confirming he will not call his client to the stand:

David Humphrey, representing Michael McLeod, says he won’t be calling evidence, given McLeod’s police statement in 2018 was already shown in court via video taken in 2018.

I also find it very interesting that:

Dubé’s lawyer has indicated he’ll be calling London police Det. Lindsay Ryan, lead detective for the second investigation that led to this trial.

It would ordinarily seem obvious this witness would be adverse to the accused given the circumstances. But they must have something they think is compelling and worth any risks inherent in calling the detective whose work resulted in the charges.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

The discrepancies between the inadmissible text chain and the story being told by Hart under oath is quite stark, and Hart is clearly very well prepared by his lawyers.

I understand why the text chain can't be admitted as evidence. It still doesn't change the logic that (exaggeration inherent to a 19 year old boys group chat notwithstanding), something happened that night that more closely aligned with E.M.'s story than the players one.

As much as I hate to say it, I didn't think her testimony held up well under cross-examination either and she had just as much preparation and coaching. I know it sounds cliche, but maybe the truth really is somewhere in the middle. Make no mistake, the middle still leaves a lot of room for sexual assault to have occurred, but it's quite possible that more than just the initial sexual encounter with McLeod was consensual (like the stuff with Hart and Formenton), while the butt slapping and splits were not. Unfortunately, inconsistencies could cause enough reasonable doubt that everyone gets away with it.

Hart still has to be cross-examined and the defense is calling at least one more witness, so who knows what else might come out.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

As much as I hate to say it, I didn't think her testimony held up well under cross-examination either and she had just as much preparation and coaching. I know it sounds cliche, but maybe the truth really is somewhere in the middle. Make no mistake, the middle still leaves a lot of room for sexual assault to have occurred, but it's quite possible that more than just the initial sexual encounter with McLeod was consensual (like the stuff with Hart and Formenton), while the butt slapping and splits were not. Unfortunately, inconsistencies could cause enough reasonable doubt that everyone gets away with it.

Hart still has to be cross-examined and the defense is calling at least one more witness, so who knows what else might come out.

Entirely possible.

Though if that were the case why not lay charges for the two or three encounters that were taking it beyond what it initially was.

These five were the ones summoned for a reason. Can't help but feel like she would've been counseled on who/what was worth pursuing charges against and who wasn't.

She knowingly went up against the word of several eye witnesses. Someone who is fabricating a story or stretching truths is unlikely to do that, you would think.

[WideReceiver]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

How come Michael McLeod wont testify? should a defendant always have to testify?

Defendants usually don’t testify. It’s risky and lawyers usually advise against it.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Entirely possible.

Though if that were the case why not lay charges for the two or three encounters that were taking it beyond what it initially was.

These five were the ones summoned for a reason. Can't help but feel like she would've been counseled on who/what was worth pursuing charges against and who wasn't.

She knowingly went up against the word of several eye witnesses. Someone who is fabricating a story or stretching truths is unlikely to do that, you would think.

One reason could be because it's an easier conversation to have with your boyfriend, now fiance, to say that you were completely wasted and cheated on him with one guy and everything after was non-consensual, than to say that you wanted group sex with strangers, not completely wasted, but something non-consensual also happened. It all would have come out in court, keeping in mind that she initially didn't want it to go that far. One is a forgivable transgression, but the other probably a relationship killer for most people.

[Jason14h]

For the legal experts - if only Dube was found guilty for the rear end slaps as non consensual -
Realistically what is the punishment for that / ranges of punishment / most likely outcome