The crime occurred in February 2014. The victim, in a drunken state, had fallen asleep, alone, in her boyfriend’s room. His roommate, a man in his late twenties, entered the room. He touched her breasts and vulva, and penetrated her with his fingers. The woman pushed him away when she realized it, and then the boyfriend intervened to throw him out of the bedroom.
Posted at 5:00 a.m.
At trial, the defendant, who said he understood he had acted wrongly, requested a conditional discharge after the guilty verdict. This was to allow him to keep his job in a telecommunications company. The judge considered several mitigating factors. His age. The absence of a criminal record. The absence of violence or relentlessness with the victim (apart from the nature of the aggression itself). Remorse expressed.
Absolution was granted to Jessy Gravel. It was even confirmed by the Court of Appeal, which held that the trial judge had not committed an error of law or principle in granting it.
It was in June 2018.
And at the time, it was not the subject of the slightest paragraph in the media.
The contrast with the absolution granted two weeks ago to Simon Houle for a similar attack is striking…
What happened during these four years for the decision in the case of Mr. Houle to cause such an outcry? The answer is obvious: an earthquake called #metoo/#metoo, which had been rumbling for several years before erupting in the fall of 2017, and which caused a profound and remarkable collective change in perception about the seriousness of the attack. sexual.
This kind of social change does not happen all at once. It will have taken testimonies, denunciations and trials for the change to occur… And it’s not over, by the way.
But already, this dazzling transformation has widened such a gap that people and institutions that do not move at the same pace seem to live in a parallel reality.
However, the right often trails a few meters behind the peloton…
When sentencing a convicted accused, the judge must consider a set of criteria. This sentence must be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime and the degree of responsibility of the individual.
In his judgment rendered on June 21, Judge Matthieu Poliquin, of the Court of Quebec, details his thoughts on the sentence to be imposed on Mr. Houle, convicted of sexual assault. He describes the consequences of the assault on the victim as “significant”. It takes into account aggravating and mitigating factors. It refers to previous decisions. He recalls “the importance that our society attaches to rehabilitation” while recognizing that “absolution is a sentence rarely imposed for this type of offence”.
On the legal level, his arguments do not deviate so much from case law. But some of his reflections make you wince. He notes that the aggression “is taking place, all in all, quickly”. He holds that the behavior of the aggressor is explained by the fact that he was intoxicated. He acknowledges that there was “abuse of vulnerability”, but stresses that there was no “abuse of trust or authority”.
Are these still valid arguments to justify an absolution? Especially given the nature of the acts committed by the aggressor? In 2022, that is no longer happening.
The Court of Appeal will have the opportunity to update the seriousness scale for sexual assaults in order to allow for the imposition of a just sentence.
This will be an important cause to follow. It is a logical continuation of this awareness that has driven us since the #metoo movement.
In what situations must a judge now consider a discharge, suspended sentence, probation, fine, imprisonment to determine the sentence of a person found guilty of sexual assault?
Between a wandering hand and a rape, what are the stages of seriousness from which a conditional discharge is no longer acceptable?
Where is the line? What are the benchmarks?
Because, obviously, the cursor has moved for five years.