(Toronto) Jurors in the sexual assault trial of Canadian musician Jacob Hoggard posed new questions on Sunday about the concept of consent on the sixth day of their deliberations.
Posted at 3:12 p.m.
They asked the judge to explain to them how the facts and gestures of the complainant can raise a reasonable doubt about her state of mind at the time of the alleged facts without falling into stereotypes concerning the behavior of the victims.
In particular, they asked for examples relating to the second complainant, an Ottawa woman who met Hoggard through the Tinder app in November 2016 and traveled to visit him in Toronto later that month.
The juror also wants to be sure they understand the difference between willful ignorance of the victim’s lack of consent and genuine ignorance.
Hoggard, lead singer of Hedley, pleaded not guilty to two counts of sexual assault causing bodily harm and one of sexual interference, a charge that refers to sexual touching of a person under the age of 16.
The Crown alleges that Hoggard repeatedly raped a teenage fan and a young woman from Ottawa in separate incidents in the fall of 2016. It further alleges that he groped the teenager after a performance of Hedley in April 2016, when she was 15.
The defense argues that the touching did not take place and that the two sexual encounters were consensual. Defense attorneys argue that the plaintiffs fabricated rape allegations to cover up their embarrassment at being dismissed by Hoggard.
In her response to jurors on Sunday, Ontario Superior Court Judge Gillian Roberts said she could not provide a specific example to judge the evidence presented by the second plaintiff while making some legal generalities on the subject.
She repeated her instructions not to conclude how an “ideal victim” would normally react based on stereotypes.
The judge also told the jurors to listen carefully to what the plaintiff said and did at the time before reaching a conclusion about possible consent.
“Remember that reasonable doubt should not be based on speculation. Something must have been said or done by the complainant for there to be a reasonable doubt about consent. »
Whether Hoggard willfully ignored or was unaware of the complainants’ lack of consent is irrelevant.
The judge reminded them that the Crown must have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant had not consented to the sexual act.
If they accept the plaintiff’s version of what happened in the hotel room, then they must reject Hoggard’s and conclude that the plaintiffs were not consenting, Justice Roberts added.