Nevertheless,
Canada hockey trial: videos would:
A few days before the verdict in the Hockey Canada case. Moreover, law experts claim that the videos shown in court of the complainant saying that she agreed with what had been proceeded from a misunderstanding, on a wider scale, consent and the law in matters of sexual assault in the country.
Two videos captured by cell phones in which she says she agreed with what happened. Therefore, that Everything was consensual
were presented in evidence during the trial of Michael McLeod, Carter HartAlex formed, Dillon Dubé and Callan Foote.
The five men have pleaded not guilty to a charge of sexual assault after a meeting in a hotel in London. Furthermore, Ontario, on the morning of June 19, 2018. Similarly, Michael McLeod also pleaded not guilty to an additional canada hockey trial: videos would accusation of participation in the offense.
On Thursday. Moreover, the judge of the Ontario Superior Court Maria Carrocia will return her verdict in this file in which consent is at the heart of the case.
Voluntary consent? – Canada hockey trial: videos would
The prosecutors argued that the complainant did not voluntarily participate in the sexual acts that took place that evening. Therefore, that the players did not take reasonable measures in order to obtain her container.
The crown described women’s videos like words in the air
. Meanwhile, According to the prosecutors. Similarly, the alleged victim had no choice but to say that he agreed when a group of men whom she did not know began to ask her to do things in a hotel room.
Defense lawyers, on the other hand, have repeatedly questioned the credibility of the complainant and her reliability as a canada hockey trial: videos would witness. They believe that she participated actively in sexual acts. that she invented the allegations since she did not want to be held responsible for her actions that evening.
Not very relevant
Video statements like the clips presented in court do not necessarily represent consent. according to law professor Daphne Gilbert, of the University of Ottawa
Legally speaking, they are not very relevant, because consent must be obtained continuously and concomitant with sexual activities and you must consent to all the things that arise
explains Professor Gilbert, who is researching sexual violence and abuse in Canadian sport.
Prior consent does not exist, as is consent after the facts. It is not consensual because you said that “everything was consensual”
she said.
The London courthouse, where the trial took place.
Photo: Canadian press / Nicole Osborne
Lisa Dufraimont. law professor at York University, says that this type of video could also be perceived as a form of hearsay since it does not contain any declaration called under oath in court.
If the complainant comes to the bar during the trial. testifies that she consented at that time, it proves that she consented at this time
said Lisa Dufraimont, who is doing research on the issue of evidence in cases of sexual assault.
But canada hockey trial: videos would she adds that videos can be used for other legal arguments. such as those who require a description of the complainant’s mood or the defendant at the time of the facts.
If the video is filmed near the time of the alleged sexual assault. it could testify to the level of poisoning of a person or their emotional state, which could correspond or not to the emotional state as described later
she said.
Not a form of consent. says the crown
During the trial, the crown argued that the videos shown in court did not demonstrate that the complainant voluntarily consented to the alleged events.
Video recording does not represent a form of consent. Everything had already happened
said the prosecutor Meaghan Cunningham About the video in which the woman says. that Everything was consensual
.
Only one of the accused, Carter Hartwas called to the bar during the trial. The Court also heard. viewed interviews carried out by the police with three other accused in 2018: Michael McLeod, Alex Formenton and Dillon Dube.
Carter Hart is the only accused who testified during the trial.
Photo : Radio-Canada / Alexandra Newbould
People facing charges during a trial are not canada hockey trial: videos would forced to testify. the defense does not need to present proof. It is up to the crown to prove the guilt of an individual beyond reasonable doubt.
During his interview with the police. in 2018, Michael McLeod told the detective that he had recorded one of the videos since he was just worried that something like happening
.
At the helm, Carter Hart He testified that consent videos are not unusual for professional athletes.
Professor Gilbert. of the University of Ottawa, believes that Canada, in general, must do more to educate young people in relation to consent, particularly in sport.
Consent must be enthusiastic, affirmative, continuous and coherent
said the professor. I don’t think people understand what the law requires. If you understand this. as well as the appropriate consent approach, it is easier to understand why these canada hockey trial: videos would videos do not mean much.
Further reading: Canada and New Zealand settle a dispute in the dairy sector – Canada-United States customs prices: what actual impact on automotive sales? – Guilbault and the third link: a cynicism to cry – Capital Group Canada announces cash distributions for FNB Capital Group Canada (CAPM, CAPW) – The holidays will take place in Canada, confirms a survey.
