Charges against five former members of Canada’s National Junior Hockey Team were laid Monday, nearly six years after an alleged sexual assault. If such a long period can discourage victims from filing a complaint, the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (DPCP) emphasizes that such delays are not “usual”. He further recalls that consent to sexual acts is of supreme importance, and that sexual assault trials do not come down to “one person’s version against the other’s version”.
The five players — four of whom play in the NHL — appeared in court Monday morning in London, Ontario, for a gang sexual assault that allegedly took place in 2018.
Many questions remain unanswered, while Ontario police officers want to reveal almost nothing so as not, they say, to harm the investigation and criminal proceedings. If the police encountered particular pitfalls which prolonged their investigation, they did not reveal them.
Regardless, many sexual assault cases are resolved, with a verdict and sentence imposed, in a much quicker time frame.
According to Me Éliane Beaulieu, the provincial coordinator in matters of sexual violence at the DPCP, “we must give time to the investigation” but a period of six years between the complaint and the filing of charges is “not usual” in Quebec.
Despite such cases which can discourage victims, the DPCP always urges them to report.
“I would like to tell them that they will receive psychosocial and legal support throughout the legal proceedings”, both from the various stakeholders and from the Crown prosecutors, underlined Ms.e Beaulieu in interview. She recalls that the Canadian Victims’ Bill of Rights also sets out the right of complainants to be informed of the status of the case throughout the criminal proceedings.
Then, once the charges are filed, sexual assault cases are treated “as a priority” by the DPCP in Quebec, adds the woman who was a member of the Committee of Experts on Support for Victims of Assault sexual and domestic violence.
In the hockey players’ case, another factor could lengthen or shorten the procedures: will there be one or five trials? It’s the Crown that chooses, explains Me Beaulieu. But if she decides to proceed with just one, each defendant can ask the judge to have their own trial.
Consent is key
The question of consent is central to many sexual assault cases that end up before the courts.
Here, we do not know all the facts of this case. According to what was alleged by the plaintiff in a civil suit she filed in Ontario — and since settled out of court — she met one of the hockey players at the hotel bar and they had a part of the evening together. She claims to have then consented to certain sexual acts with him, but not with seven of his teammates who burst into the hotel room where they were. According to what she alleges in the suit, she wanted to leave the room on more than one occasion, but was prevented from doing so.
Me Beaulieu cannot comment on the facts of this case, but recalls the law in force.
She explains, however, that consent to sexual acts is specific to a person and to certain activities. It can be given to one person, or to two, which obviously does not apply to others. “You have to know what you are agreeing to before you embark. »
In addition, consent can be withdrawn “at any time”, insists the prosecutor.
Consent does not have to be verbal, but it must be “communicated.” A victim who freezes and says nothing cannot be considered to have given valid consent, she said. The defense that relies solely on “she didn’t say no” risks not resisting the onslaught of cross-examination for long.
A defense that is often used by defendants is that of “honest but mistaken belief” in consent. It requires the accused to have taken reasonable steps to ensure the consent of their partner. Each case is unique and will depend on the specific facts of their exchanges.
And if we often hear that the causes of sexual assault are reduced to “one person’s version versus the other’s version,” Me Beaulieu assures that there are many more nuances.
It is true that attacks often take place out of sight, she agrees. But sometimes there are witnesses, or other evidence such as text message exchanges or a video, she continues.
And even without such evidence, “the victim’s testimony may be entirely sufficient,” recalls M.e Beaulieu.
A complainant should also not be intimidated by being alone facing five accused who potentially have the same version. It’s not one person against five, the Crown prosecutor corrects: “it’s the State against the accused” and it’s up to the State to fulfill its burden of proof.
And then, the judge is used to evaluating the credibility and reliability of those who testify before him.
“It’s more a question of quality than quantity,” she summarizes.