(Haileybury) Defense lawyers for Canadian musician Jacob Hoggard attacked his accuser’s credibility Thursday during their closing arguments to jurors in the singer’s sexual assault trial. They suggested the woman lied about the encounter to cover up her infidelity and changed the details of her story over time.
Prosecutors, meanwhile, argued that the woman remains “steadfast” on key elements of what she claims happened in Hoggard’s hotel room about eight years ago, and that she had no reason to lie about it.
The accused, the Crown argued, had “significant gaps” in his memories of that night.
The closing arguments capped nearly two weeks of trial during which the former singer of the group Hedley and the plaintiff painted radically different images of their meeting in June 2016.
Crown and defense agree sex took place in Hoggard’s hotel room after concert and bonfire in Kirkland Lake, Ont., but prosecutors seek to prove she was not consensual.
The plaintiff, who was 19 at the time, testified that Hoggard raped, strangled, punched and urinated on her, and called her a “dirty little slut.” She recalled being terrified of Hoggard during the encounter and said she repeatedly tried to get away from him and told him to stop.
The woman, whose identity is protected by a publication ban, was the Crown’s only witness.
Hoggard said in his testimony that they flirted all night and then had a consensual one-night stand.
He denied that the woman struggled, that he hit or choked her, that he held her down, or that she said she was uncomfortable. He also denied insulting her and said she agreed to urinate on him during consensual oral sex.
“A motive to lie from the start”
Defense lawyer Megan Savard suggested Thursday that the complainant’s account of what happened that night was unreliable and “riddled with inconsistencies,” and that the woman had “a motive to lie from the start.”
The complainant made a “stupid and spontaneous decision” to have a one-night stand with a celebrity, but she could not tell those around her without losing their support and compromising her two-year relationship, she said. argues the defense lawyer.
Me Savard admitted that the plaintiff “may have been embarrassed or heartbroken,” adding that “she may have felt ridiculous after realizing that she was not, in fact, special to Mr. Hoggard as she described him, when she realized she had cheated on her boyfriend for nothing. »
Over the years, “the pressure to make a private lie public became too great”, and the woman filed a police report, the lawyer insinuated.
Me Savard also argued that the plaintiff confidently testified about details that were contradicted by other evidence, such as transportation to the bonfire and the clothing worn by Hoggard at the party that followed.
No inconsistencies “on the essential details of the sexual assault”
In his charge to the jury, prosecutor Peter Keen argued that the allegation that the complainant fabricated her allegations to preserve her relationship and reputation “makes no sense”.
He noted that Hoggard was charged after the woman gave a statement to police in 2022, at least a year after she broke up with her boyfriend. There is no evidence that anyone close to her knew the incident took place, other than the cousin who accompanied her to the concert, he noted.
There is also no evidence the woman was under any pressure to come forward with her allegations, he said.
Me Keen acknowledged that there were “multiple inconsistencies on peripheral details” of the complainant’s account, but “not on the essential details of the sexual assault,” including attempted anal penetration and urination.
Hoggard’s testimony also included inaccuracies or inconsistencies about details contradicted by other witnesses’ accounts, such as the path he and the plaintiff took to the hotel room or whether the group stopped in a bar before going to the bonfire, noted prosecutor Keen.
More importantly, the prosecutor pointed out, Hoggard could not remember key parts of the encounter, although he testified that the night was memorable because of the bonfire and the specific sexual acts he had with the complainant.
“In terms of essential details, Mr. Hoggard had significant memory lapses and certain parts of his version of events did not correspond to his testimony as a whole,” he pointed out.
Mr Keen told jurors they did not need to believe every aspect of the complainant’s story beyond a reasonable doubt to find Hoggard guilty – only that one of the sexual acts which took place was not not consensual and that Hoggard was aware of it.
He said jurors also don’t need to agree whether the act was not consensual.
The defense attorney argued to the jury that while her client admitted to certain behaviors they might find “unusual or unpleasant,” including having casual sex with a much younger woman, as well as interests sexual relations that they might find “strange or unpleasant”, they cannot condemn him on these grounds.
“In Canada, we don’t condemn people because we don’t like their sexual behavior. We do not use the criminal law to control people’s sexual preferences or to protect them from sexual deception,” argued M.me Savard.
The judge is expected to begin giving final instructions to the jury on Friday.