Sexual assault reporting among junior world competitors may face a significant obstacle, according to advocates, due to the upcoming decision potentially serving as a significant deterrent.
In a courtroom in London, Ont, the high-profile world junior sex assault trial concluded with Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia finding all five defendants - Michael McLeod, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart, Dillon Dube, and Callan Foote - not guilty of sexual assault. The trial, which centered around an alleged incident of non-consensual group sex with a then-20-year-old woman in June 2018, has sparked concerns among advocates for survivors of sexual assault.
London Police Chief Thai Truong, determined to ensure a victim-centered, trauma-informed response, expressed concern over underreporting of sexual violence incidents due to fear of additional trauma within the justice process. The fear of judgement within communities and beyond, Truong acknowledged, also contributes to this issue.
Jennifer Dunn, the executive director of the London Abused Women's Centre, called the judge's words "utter nonsense." Dunn, along with other advocates, believes more needs to be done within the justice system, specifically training around consent and sexual assault for all judges. Dunn also expressed that the system was built in a way that women are conditioned to fear and please men.
The judge's decision to dismiss the complainant's credibility and emphasize the presumption of innocence has raised concerns about its potential impact on future sexual assault reporting. Advocates fear that the acquittals might discourage survivors from coming forward due to fears of not being believed or facing intense scrutiny.
Moreover, the judge's ruling on the issue of consent has sparked debate. The judge explicitly stated that "actual consent not vitiated by fear" was found, and criticized the slogan "Believe the victim." Advocates fear this could set a precedent that narrows how consent is understood legally, complicating cases where consent is ambiguous or contested, and may leave survivors vulnerable to having their credibility undermined.
The trial's process and outcome have also highlighted difficulties in addressing consent and assessing evidence in sexual assault trials. The defense's focus on inconsistencies and character attacks during cross-examination exposed systemic challenges survivors face in court. Advocates warn that this might deter calls for reforms that make the justice system more responsive and sensitive to sexual assault issues.
The trial's lengthy and public nature, combined with the judge's dismissal of the complainant's credibility, may exacerbate trauma for survivors in similar cases and affect public confidence in the legal process handling sexual assault fairly and effectively.
Despite these concerns, Dunn and Rodger, another advocate, have stated that the decision might deter people from speaking up, but they want those who have experienced sexual assault to know they have other options. Rodger said that sexual assault centres can provide healing and support to victims and survivors. London Police Chief Thai Truong commended the complainant for her "outstanding courage and strength" in coming forward and enduring the prolonged legal process.
[1] Chilling Effect on Reporting [2] Interpretation of Consent [3] Justice System Challenges [4] Public and Victim Impact [5] Limitations on Progressive Interpretations of Consent
This article was filed by Aaron D'Andrea and Sean O'Shea.
- In light of the trial's outcome, advocates are concerned that the ruling might have a chilling effect on reporting future cases of sexual assault, as survivors may fear not being believed or facing intense scrutiny.
- The judge's interpretation of consent, emphasizing the need for actual consent not vitiated by fear, has sparked debate within the health-and-wellness community, particularly in relation to sexual-health and mental-health concerns, as it could set a precedent that complicates cases with ambiguous or contested consent and potentially leaves survivors vulnerable to having their credibility undermined.
