The fate of ex-MP Harold LeBel is now in the hands of the jury, which was isolated late Monday to decide whether the 60-year-old is guilty of sexual assault.
The 12 jurors – 9 women and 3 men – should have received instructions from the judge on Monday morning. The trial instead took an unexpected turn at the Rimouski courthouse. The complainant was called back to the bar in extremis because of new information.
The defense lawyer learned Wednesday evening that the young woman is participating in a Quebecor documentary in which she intends to reveal her identity. According to Me Maxime Roy, it deserved to be presented to the members of the jury.
“On Wednesday, I told you that you would hear no further evidence. However, I have just rendered a decision by which I authorize the parties to proceed with the reopening of the investigation of the trial, ”said Judge Serge Francœur on Monday morning in an extremely rare decision.
The complainant, whom a court order prohibits her from being identified, was therefore subjected to new questions from Harold LeBel’s lawyer. Me Roy believes that this new information taints the sincerity of the complainant.
Out of the shadows
“Are you aware that during the trial several efforts were made to protect your identity? asked M.e Roy.
“I haven’t done anything wrong. I was sexually assaulted. The person who has things to be ashamed of is Harold LeBel. I don’t have to carry this on my shoulders. I don’t have to be the one you see in front of the cameras during the trial. This is not my own trial, ”replied the complainant.
Harold LeBel’s lawyer sought to understand why she had not revealed her participation in this journalistic investigation to the members of the jury or to the investigators.
She has every right to participate in a documentary. But why didn’t you tell it?
Me Maxime Roy, lawyer for Mr. LeBel, addressing the members of the jury
The young woman indicated that she did not see the relevance of doing so. She explained that it was part of her journey, and that after having sought at all costs to protect her identity from the public, she now felt ready to reveal it.
“I want to turn these traumatic events into something positive, maybe even for society by explaining the legal process,” she said.
She also mentioned that her identity had leaked in December 2020 during the arrest of Mr. LeBel, since certain journalists had given clues and that a commentator had even named her on the air.
She would not be the first complainant in a sexual assault case to reveal her identity at the end of the trial. Recently, documentary filmmaker Léa Clermont-Dion chose to remain anonymous throughout the sexual assault trial of ex-journalist Michel Venne. She had emerged from the shadows after the verdict.
The Crown prosecutor argued to the jury that the complainant’s participation in a documentary had little to do with the heart of the case.
According to her, the young woman did not try to hide the affair, she was simply not questioned about it.
“The subject was not broached in any way. Why ? Is it because it’s irrelevant to the accused’s guilt or innocence? asks M.e Manon Gaudreault.
The jury goes from 14 to 12 members
Judge Francoeur instructed the jury in the afternoon. He recalled the principles of the presumption of innocence and gave an overview of the evidence.
The magistrate had first selected 14 jurors, to prevent an adjournment due to infections with COVID-19 for example. But none of the jurors were ill during the two weeks of the trial. On Monday, a coin toss eliminated two of them, bringing their total down to 12.
Harold LeBel is charged with sexual assault. The complainant accuses him of having tried to kiss her one evening in October 2017, of having undone her bra and then of having touched her while she was lying petrified in a bed in the Rimouski apartment of former member of the Parti Québécois.
The former politician instead described a consensual kiss and claims nothing more happened.
The jurors will have to assess the testimonies of the two main interested parties, but also the messages sent by Mr. LeBel to the complainant and presented in evidence.