The judge who had granted the absolution to an engineer guilty of sexual assault did not commit any ethical fault, ruled the Council of the Judiciary by rejecting the “unfounded” complaints against him.
• Read also: Simon Houle case: Judge Poliquin based himself on “stereotypes”
• Read also: Judicial Council to examine complaints against Judge Poliquin
• Read also: Absolution after a sexual assault: the engineer loses his job
“The angle of ethical analysis remains the conduct of the judge, and not the merits of the decision he renders. If the judge makes an error of law in his decision, it is the appellate courts that are responsible for correcting it, and not the Judicial Council,” reads the recent public decision.
Judge Matthieu Poliquin will therefore not have to explain himself before the Judicial Council for the controversial absolution he granted this summer to engineer Simon Houle.
Facebook picture
Simon Houle
“Good character”
Houle, 31, was able to escape a criminal record, even though he confessed to sexually assaulting a drunk friend and photographing her private parts.
In his decision, the magistrate had noted that the attack had taken place “all in all quickly”, and that the state of intoxication by alcohol of the accused “can make it possible to explain a behavior”.
The judge then spoke of “person of good character” while paying particular attention to the impact that a criminal record could have on the engineering career of the sexual aggressor.
These comments had created an outcry among the population and after analysis, the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions had appealed the case. Among other things, the Crown criticizes the judge for having made comments that “tend to excuse or relieve responsibility” for Houle, in addition to having incorrectly assessed the various factors to be taken into account in a sentence.
flabbergasted
But at the same time, several citizens had lodged a complaint with the Judicial Council.
“The remarks made by the judge in his judgment are despicable, could we read in one of the complaints. In a social context where attempts are made to regain the confidence of victims of sexual assault in the justice system and the system, the words used are insensitive, misogynistic and send shivers down the spine. »
Another citizen said she was “flabbergasted” by the judge’s remarks, denouncing arguments “which make no sense”.
But the Judicial Council recognizes that “everyone is free to express opinions and criticisms of court decisions, it is not the right forum to respond to these complaints.
“The Judicial Council is not an appeal or review body, nor can it express any approving or disapproving comment on the correctness of a decision rendered,” reads the decision.
Simon Houle’s appeal, meanwhile, will be heard next month.