The Supreme Court of Canada orders a new trial for a man acquitted of sexually assaulting his granddaughter. The judge who rendered this verdict was based on myths and stereotypes about how a “real victim” of aggression behaves and that does not pass, recalls the highest court in the country.
The unanimous – and concise – judgment was delivered orally on the bench Thursday, in less than three minutes.
In this case, a Newfoundland and Labrador man was charged with sexually assaulting his granddaughter. She was 12 when she testified at trial.
It had been put into evidence before the judge that after the alleged assaults – which would have been committed when the girl was between 7 and 10 years old, between 2014 and 2016 – she was “happy” to see her grandfather , and did not seek to avoid it.
The magistrate deduced that she had a “solid and normal” relationship with him.
According to the judge, this observation and her behavior tarnished her credibility regarding the assaults of which she claimed to be the victim. He acquitted the man.
Subsequently, the Court of Appeal of that province rejected the analysis made by the trial judge, judging that his “reasonable doubt” was based on stereotypes according to which a victim cannot be happy to see his aggressor, whatever their age and the circumstances, and that a victim adopts an avoidance behavior vis-à-vis their aggressor if they are really the victim of abuse.
However, a victim of sexual assault often tries to “normalize” the actions taken so as not to destroy the family dynamic, recalls the Court of Appeal.
The latter had therefore reversed the acquittal and ordered a new trial, hence the appeal of the man to the Supreme Court.
But the highest court in the land sided with the Court of Appeal.
He noted that the trial judge inferred that the child had a “solid and normal” relationship with the accused, which led him to question the credibility of the complainant regarding the assaults.
“This trial judge’s inference was rooted in stereotypical reasoning rather than the entirety of the evidence and constituted an error of law,” Judge Malcolm Rowe said, reading the Supreme Court ruling from the bench. .
“It undermines his assessment of the credibility [de la plaignante]and therefore, its verdict, ”he decides, before ordering a new trial.