Hockey Canada, CHL settle lawsuit over alleged sexual assault involving WJ players

[Nelson]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

Isn't that what Courts are for? Not cops.

Cops determine if charges "seem" appropriate and make a recommendation to the Crown. The Crown evaluates same and either proceeds or doesn't. Courts determine if a crime was or was not committed, giving weight to ALL the evidence available and the credibility of those testifying.

Hold on, nope. The police are responsible for determining reasonable grounds and laying charges. In most provinces, Crown then withdraws or stays charges for which there is no reasonable likelihood of conviction or insufficient public interest in a prosecution (or as a result of resolution without trial). In BC, NB and QC and in some places in AB (because there is a rollout occurring that may make AB like BC, NB and QC), they have pre-charge approval (PCA), and Crown approves, modifies, or denies charges before police lay them. (Statistics from BC, NB and QC have shown a significant reduction in charges in the system with PCA. In AB places with PCA, the reduction has been about 30% year over year.) You can read about AB’s rollout in the news.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Nelson

Hold on, nope. The police are responsible for determining reasonable grounds and laying charges. In most provinces, Crown then withdraws or stays charges for which there is no reasonable likelihood of conviction or insufficient public interest in a prosecution (or as a result of resolution without trial). In BC, NB and QC and in some places in AB (because there is a rollout occurring that may make AB like BC, NB and QC), they have pre-charge approval (PCA), and Crown approves, modifies, or denies charges before police lay them. (Statistics from BC, NB and QC have shown a significant reduction in charges in the system with PCA. In AB places with PCA, the reduction has been about 30% year over year.) You can read about AB’s rollout in the news.

Nelson, appreciate this post.
Care to dumb down the bolded, with a further explanation?

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Nelson, appreciate this post.
Care to dumb down the bolded, with a further explanation?

3.2. The public interest

It is a well-accepted principle of law in Canada and throughout the Commonwealth that a prosecution should be undertaken only where the requisite evidence exists and a prosecution would best serve the public interest. It has never been the rule that a prosecution will occur solely on the basis that there is sufficient evidence to support a charge.

Consequently, if there is sufficient evidence, Crown counsel must then consider whether, in all of the circumstances, a prosecution would best serve the public interest. Crown counsel consider the public interest only when satisfied that the evidentiary foundation to support a charge has been met as “no public interest, however compelling, can warrant the prosecution of an individual if there is no reasonable prospect of conviction.” If there is a reasonable prospect of conviction, “the public interest in the due enforcement of the criminal law will in most cases, without more, require that the matter be brought before the courts for a decision on the merits.”

Crown counsel must continuously consider the public interest in light of relevant emerging developments and the available material. There must be a re-assessment of the public interest at each stage of the prosecution.

Crown counsel should take into account the matters set out below when considering the public interest. Factors that are often relevant are listed. It would be impossible to catalogue every factor that could be relevant in every situation. As well, the relevance and the weight of these factors vary from case to case. In addition, considerations may also arise in specific types of cases, such as when the accused is Indigenous, or a member of another group that is overrepresented in the criminal justice system. In assessing the public interest, Crown counsel should also consult relevant Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) directives and guidelines.

Even if there is sufficient evidence to proceed with a prosecution, Crown counsel should proceed only if, considering all of the circumstances, a prosecution would best serve the public interest. In some cases there may be an appropriate alternative to prosecution. For example, based on the assessment of the public interest as a result of a careful consideration of the factors below, Crown counsel may conclude in certain cases that there are more effective ways to address the offending conduct and to reduce the likelihood of recidivism, such as the use of alternative measures (or extrajudicial measures for a young person), referral to a Restorative Justice program or other diversionary responses. In other cases, such as where an offender has been rehabilitated and there is no need to address general deterrence and denunciation, proceeding with a prosecution may not be in the public interest.

PPSC prosecutors must consider the following factors related to:

1. The nature of the alleged offence
   • Its seriousness or triviality: the more serious the alleged offence, the more likely the public interest will require that a prosecution be pursued. However, where the alleged offence is not so serious as to plainly require a prosecution, Crown counsel must consider their duty to uphold the laws enacted by Parliament and any important public interest served by conducting a prosecution, for example ensuring compliance with a regulatory regime through prosecution;
   • For administration of justice offences, such as failures to appear or failures to comply with conditions: consideration should be given to how an offender’s circumstances related to the offence, where the offence can be considered as relatively minor and did not affect public or individual safety. For example, did the offence of failing to appear as required relate to an underlying problem or condition of the accused, such as homelessness, a substance abuse issue or a mental disorderɁ Such considerations should factor into the determination as to whether prosecution of the administration of justice offence best serves to promote future compliance with court orders, particularly when the accused is a member of an overrepresented population such as Indigenous persons;
   • The prevalence and impact of the alleged offence in the community: in particular where Indigenous women and girls and other groups are already disproportionately represented as victims of violent crime;
   • The likely sentence in the event of a conviction: in the case of an Indigenous accused, the Crown should, to the extent feasible, assess the likely sentence in view of the approach outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Gladue, and affirmed and clarified in its subsequent rulings.
   • The delay between the commission of the alleged offence and the time of the charging decision: considerations relevant to the impact of any delay include the responsibility of the accused for the delay, the discoverability of the alleged offence by the police or investigative agency, and the complexity and length of the investigation; or
   • The law that is alleged to have been breached: whether it is obsolete or obscure.
2. The nature of the harm caused by or the consequences of the alleged offence
   • The nature of the harm includes loss or injury caused by the alleged offence and relevant consequences to the victim, the community, the environment, natural resources, safety, public health, public welfare or societal, economic, cultural or other public interests;
   • The extent to which the alleged offence causes concern in the community, such as in Indigenous communities, where the impacts of crime are significant and contribute to the on-going trauma and disproportionate victimization already being experienced by Indigenous persons as a result of historic and systemic factors;
   • The entitlement of any person to criminal compensation, reparation or forfeiture if a prosecution occurs; or
   • The availability of civil remedies is not a factor that militates against a prosecution.
3. The circumstances, consequences to and attitude of victims
   Although Crown counsel do not act as lawyers for victims, the effect of the alleged offence on victims is relevant and important in assessing the public interest. Counsel must consider:
   • The attitude of the victim of the alleged offence to a prosecution. This may include the attitude of the victim’s family members;
   • The impact of the alleged offence on the victim and the victim's family, including any loss, injury or harm suffered;
   • The youth, age, intelligence, vulnerability, disability, dependence, physical health, mental health, and other personal circumstances of the victim;
   • Whether the victim was serving the public or was a public official;
   • Whether a prosecution is likely to have an adverse effect on the victim's physical or mental health;
   • Where the effect of the alleged offence on the victim or the community exacerbates the on-going trauma and victimization caused by the impacts of residential schools and the historical factors experienced by Indigenous victims; or
   • Whether the alleged offence impacts non-Indigenous victims who are also overrepresented as victims in the criminal justice system by virtue of race, age, gender, poverty, substance abuse disorder, mental illness or any other similar factor.
4. The level of culpability and circumstances of the accused
   • The accused's degree of responsibility;
   • Significant mitigating or aggravating circumstances, including those identified in the Criminal Code, other acts of Parliament, or in the jurisprudence, such as
     R v. Gladue and R v. Ipeelee;
   • Level of involvement and whether they were in a position of authority or trust;
   • The harm the accused caused, especially to communities or to members of groups who are overrepresented as victims in the criminal justice system, such as Indigenous women and girls;
   • The accused’s motivation, and in particular any bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, religion, gender, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor;
   • The accused’s agreed upon co-operation with the investigation or prosecution of others, or the extent to which they have already done so;
   • The accused’s age, intelligence, physical or mental health or infirmity; or
   • The accused’s background, including their antecedents and the likelihood of future illegal conduct. When the accused is Indigenous, the Crown should consider any available information regarding the unique systemic or background factors that may have played a role in bringing the particular Indigenous offender before the courts. For example, did the offender, or a member of his family, attend residential schools, and is there information that this experience influenced the offender and had a bearing on the criminal conductɁ The decision whether to proceed may not be altered at this stage by such considerations but it is important for Crown counsel to be aware of such factors at the earliest possible opportunity;
   • In addition, when considering the criminal record of an accused, the Crown must consider carefully the specific nature of that record. For example, to what degree does it consist of what can be characterized as minor administration of justice offences relating to underlying issues such as homelessness, mental illness, poverty or addiction.
5. The need to protect sources of information
   Whether prosecuting would require or cause the disclosure of information that should not be disclosed in the public interest, for example it would be injurious to:
   • Confidential informants;
   • Ongoing investigations;
   • International relations;
   • National defence; or
   • National security.
6. Confidence in the administration of justice
   • Whether a prosecution would maintain public confidence in the government, courts, a regulatory regime, and the administration of justice or have the opposite effect;
   • The likelihood of achieving the desired result and requisite level of specific and general deterrence and denunciation without a prosecution through available alternative measures, non-criminal processes or a prosecution by a provincial prosecution service. Where the accused is Indigenous, recognized Indigenous laws, norms, traditions and values may provide guidance regarding appropriate alternatives to prosecution for the offender. Such alternatives will be particularly appropriate where mechanisms and resources exist in communities so that offenders can be referred to alternative processes such as those involving Indigenous elders, Justice committees or specialized courts;
   • The effect on the administration of justice of committing resources to conduct the proceedings when considered in relation to the seriousness or triviality of the alleged offence, the likely sentence that would result from a conviction, and the attendant public benefit(s);
   • Whether the consequences of a prosecution or conviction would be disproportionately harsh or oppressive; or
   • Whether a prosecution would negatively impact or exacerbate the contemporary effects of residential schools and colonization on Indigenous persons or communities interacting with the criminal justice system.

Part II : Principles Governing Crown Counsel’s Conduct (Sec. 2.3: Decision to Prosecute)
https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/...ml#section_3_2

[cam_wmh]

gracias amigo

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

That’s because they are including stayed and withdrawn charges (so where prosecutors decided not to proceed, or where they accept alternative measures). Eliminate those and leave ones where there is a trial or guilty plea and you are close to 90% guilty verdicts.

I assume charges are stayed or withdrawn due to having a loser case.

[bluejays]

I think a few days ago I read one of the details were that they had her on camera appearing to be sober saying she consents to the full thing and for the players not to worry about it during the said incident. I know there are things more nuanced and that's what lawyers and prosecution will argue over, but based on that alone I'd think it would be an uphill climb to get a conviction in a criminal matter. I have no doubt these guys are all dirtbags, top to bottom, but there are also reasons she could have regretted what she did as well. Hopefully more truths come to the surface and if these guys did do anything without consent, they're given the heavy hand of the law. Pro athletes get away with so much junk.

[Northendzone]

It will be interesting to see if any players involved in this step up in the next few months to own what happened.

Surely after this time some of them have had children and now are looking and thinking about this differently.

I would also think that every time this story gets new traction, some of these guys get very uncomfortable.

But, I could be wrong and perhaps the guys in the room feel ok with what happened

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by bluejays

I think a few days ago I read one of the details were that they had her on camera appearing to be sober saying she consents to the full thing and for the players not to worry about it during the said incident. I know there are things more nuanced and that's what lawyers and prosecution will argue over, but based on that alone I'd think it would be an uphill climb to get a conviction in a criminal matter. I have no doubt these guys are all dirtbags, top to bottom, but there are also reasons she could have regretted what she did as well. Hopefully more truths come to the surface and if these guys did do anything without consent, they're given the heavy hand of the law. Pro athletes get away with so much junk.

It isn’t specified if she was sober during video recordings
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...-canada-group/

[Coach]

Originally Posted by bluejays

I think a few days ago I read one of the details were that they had her on camera appearing to be sober saying she consents to the full thing and for the players not to worry about it during the said incident. I know there are things more nuanced and that's what lawyers and prosecution will argue over, but based on that alone I'd think it would be an uphill climb to get a conviction in a criminal matter. I have no doubt these guys are all dirtbags, top to bottom, but there are also reasons she could have regretted what she did as well. Hopefully more truths come to the surface and if these guys did do anything without consent, they're given the heavy hand of the law. Pro athletes get away with so much junk.

I think it could just as easily be argued that the tape itself is evidence of coercion. The number of people who have had a consensual sexual encounter and then felt the need to have that person record a statement of consent is exactly ZERO.

I dont care if they won gold medals. I don’t care if they play for the Flames. I don’t care if I went to high school with their kid(s). Go to jail.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

It will be interesting to see if any players involved in this step up in the next few months to own what happened.

Surely after this time some of them have had children and now are looking and thinking about this differently.

I would also think that every time this story gets new traction, some of these guys get very uncomfortable.

But, I could be wrong and perhaps the guys in the room feel ok with what happened

All of them have mothers; some have sisters and daughters. Most likely have girlfriends.

All should be ashamed of themselves at a minimum.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by bluejays

I think a few days ago I read one of the details were that they had her on camera appearing to be sober saying she consents to the full thing and for the players not to worry about it during the said incident.

The video where she's crying and slurring her words?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/londo...ault-1.6690436

He would also film two videos of E.M. in the hotel room where he would ask if she was OK. In one video she is wiping her eyes and slurring her words, the document said. E.M. told police she believed the video was taken at the end of the night and she had no recollection of it.

It's always an uphill battle with rape allegations but if it's as described in the police documents then it might be more use to the prosecution than the defense.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by bluejays

I think a few days ago I read one of the details were that they had her on camera appearing to be sober saying she consents to the full thing and for the players not to worry about it during the said incident. I know there are things more nuanced and that's what lawyers and prosecution will argue over, but based on that alone I'd think it would be an uphill climb to get a conviction in a criminal matter. I have no doubt these guys are all dirtbags, top to bottom, but there are also reasons she could have regretted what she did as well. Hopefully more truths come to the surface and if these guys did do anything without consent, they're given the heavy hand of the law. Pro athletes get away with so much junk.

I don't think videos like that will be at all exonerating.

Consent is a bit nuanced/complicated, but mostly it is very very very very simple. Manipulating somebody into a situation where they feel they have no choice but to say yes (or at least not say no) is not consent.

[Goriders]

It’s obviously hard to say what exactly happened if you weren’t there. But someone decided that $3.55 million had to change hands along with a non disclosure agreement.

That probably doesn’t occur in scenarioes where nothing happened.

[Goriders]

Reading all of the summarized statements from the september CBC article there were four that didn’t state that they weren’t physically involved. Formenton’s lack of a statement and the lack of Ottawa resigning him this season is probably the most suspicious of the group.

I’m betting the players that weren’t involved probably can’t wait for the process to be over as I’m sure they feel as though they are guilty by association and can’t wait for their names to be cleared.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

The video where she's crying and slurring her words?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/londo...ault-1.6690436

Here’s what I’m referring to. Can’t find the article posted earlier in the week where it said she appeared non-intoxicated when making the remarks though. Again, this is what lawyers and prosecutors are for, as it can be nuanced in a criminal trial. My thoughts are the players are scum at the least.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9359249/h...llegation-ito/


During the course of the evening, police say two short videos were recorded by Player #1, both showing E.M.’s face. According to the ITO, the first, six-second-long video depicts E.M. saying she is “okay with this.”

In the second, 12-second-long video — believed by E.M. to have been recorded at the end of the night, after the other players had left — a male voice believed to be Player #1 is heard off-camera saying, “Say it,” followed by E.M. replying and repeating “It was all consensual,” according to the court document.

After the male asks “what else,” E.M. says, “You are so paranoid, holy. I enjoyed it, it was fine, it was all consensual. I am so sober, that’s why I can’t do this right now,” according to the ITO.

The court filing goes on to say E.M. believes the videos were taken “to protect her from going to the police.”

“Further, the videos were created at the end of the night, after the sexual activity was largely concluded,” police said. “Consent needs to be provided during the activity, not before or after.

“E.M. herself recalled thinking, ‘I wished you had asked me before if things were okay.'”

[ben voyonsdonc]

I don’t know about you but I always record videos after sex in which I declare that I was sober and consented post hoc to all of the things that were done. Totally normal.

[stang]

Originally Posted by bluejays

Here’s what I’m referring to. Can’t find the article posted earlier in the week where it said she appeared non-intoxicated when making the remarks though. Again, this is what lawyers and prosecutors are for, as it can be nuanced in a criminal trial. My thoughts are the players are scum at the least.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9359249/h...llegation-ito/


During the course of the evening, police say two short videos were recorded by Player #1, both showing E.M.’s face. According to the ITO, the first, six-second-long video depicts E.M. saying she is “okay with this.”

In the second, 12-second-long video — believed by E.M. to have been recorded at the end of the night, after the other players had left — a male voice believed to be Player #1 is heard off-camera saying, “Say it,” followed by E.M. replying and repeating “It was all consensual,” according to the court document.

After the male asks “what else,” E.M. says, “You are so paranoid, holy. I enjoyed it, it was fine, it was all consensual. I am so sober, that’s why I can’t do this right now,” according to the ITO.

The court filing goes on to say E.M. believes the videos were taken “to protect her from going to the police.”

“Further, the videos were created at the end of the night, after the sexual activity was largely concluded,” police said. “Consent needs to be provided during the activity, not before or after.

“E.M. herself recalled thinking, ‘I wished you had asked me before if things were okay.'”

#### that’s so creepy

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

I don’t know about you but I always record videos after sex in which I declare that I was sober and consented post hoc to all of the things that were done. Totally normal.

[FanIn80]

I believe this is known as Aladeening their Aladeen.

NSFW!

Spoiler!

(coercing their consent)

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by sonq

Man I hope Dube wasn't involved in this..

He was captain of the team. If he wasn't directly involved, I would be surprised if he wasn't at least aware of what was going on. I really hope it's not the case and he wasn't too engaged with the rest of the team that particular night, but from my experience, the captain is usually one of the central people in social activities around the team.