The judiciary returned to the charge on Monday against The perfect victim. Associations of lawyers and defense lawyers asked Radio-Canada to remove the documentary from its programming Tuesday evening, accusing it of conveying falsehoods and a “misleading vision of justice”. Their request, however, was rejected by the public broadcaster.
“One can rightly criticize the fact that certain remarks made in the film are not rigorously in conformity with reality. You may disagree with the message or the tone of the film. But this can in no way constitute a sufficient reason to prevent its dissemination, ”said the spokesperson for the state-owned company, Marc Pichette, in an email sent to To have to Monday.
In a letter addressed to senior management at Radio-Canada and forwarded to the public broadcaster’s ombudsman earlier today, the presidents of four associations of defense lawyers – notably Montreal-Laval-Longueuil , from Quebec and the Outaouais – expressed their concerns about the general public distribution of the documentary.
According to them, The perfect victimcontains several falsehoods and thus contravenes Radio-Canada’s “journalistic standards and practices”. The broadcaster should “avoid exposing the general public to this misleading vision of justice and inflicting undue suffering on victims in addition to potentially discouraging them from filing a complaint.”
Expression of fears
Directed by journalists Monic Néron and Émilie Perreault, this documentary lifts the veil on the obstacles that victims of sexual assault encounter when they decide to file a complaint. In addition to giving voice to victims, journalists interview criminal lawyers, Crown prosecutors and judges to explain how the judicial system works in this area.
Already when it was released in theaters this summer, several voices from the legal community were raised to denounce the inaccuracies of the film and express fears about the negative effects it could have on victims.
An argument taken up by the four associations of lawyers. In their letter, they demonstrate for example that a “simple search on the Internet” allows to contradict the assertion of the defense lawyer Patrick Davis – questioned on the camera -, which assures to have “lost no cause of sexual assault ”. “We were able to identify four published decisions in which charges of sexual assault were upheld despite representations to the contrary by Mr.e Davis […] By letting falsely believe that lawyers can acquit all their clients, we validate this feeling of powerlessness and, ultimately, we help to discourage recourse to justice for any victim of sexual assault, ”they write.
They also accuse them of having broadcast the comments of Claude F. Archambault, “a former lawyer struck off the bar for more than ten years for multiple offenses related to dishonesty”, ensuring that “intimidation practices” against victims described by “this sad character” no longer apply today and are moreover “prohibited”.
Make things change “
“If its demonstration is not flawless, this controversial film provides the opportunity for a discussion that is essential in our society,” said Radio-Canada to justify its broadcast.
Open to criticism, journalists Monic Néron and Émilie Perreault regret seeing that “we are trying to prevent people from watching the documentary”. They argue that he does not discourage victims from filing complaints, on the contrary. “We had a lot of testimonies from people who had heard the critics and who went to see the film, and they said: ‘me, I am awaiting a trial or I was thinking of filing a complaint. […] and I now feel better equipped for what lies ahead, ”says Monic Néron.
We had a lot of testimonies from people who had heard the critics and who went to see the film, and they said: “I am awaiting a trial or I was thinking of filing a complaint. […] and I now feel better equipped for what awaits me ”
The journalists also justify having questioned Claude F. Archambault, indicating to have wished to benefit from his “freedom of speech” since he is no longer a lawyer. It is also often requested by the media without making any waves, they underline.
As for the falsehoods in connection with Me Davis, the journalist assures that he “sat down in front of the camera in good faith” and that he “had an explanation for each of the cases” which he had not won. “One was more abuse than sexual assault, so he didn’t count it,” she gives as an example.
“Obviously, our documentary is disturbing, and that’s correct. That’s what it takes sometimes to make a difference, ”she concludes.