Jurors within the sexual assault trial of Canadian musician Jacob Hoggard have been advised Tuesday that his celeb standing didn't put him able of energy over the 2 complainants.
The jury, which started its deliberations Tuesday afternoon, sought readability from the court docket hours in a while what constitutes a relationship of authority for the aim of building consent to sexual exercise.
Jurors additionally requested Ontario Superior Courtroom Justice Gillian Roberts what constitutes fraud relating to consent, and whether or not consent continues to be legitimate whether it is primarily based on that individual's perception in "a lie about love."
Roberts advised jurors there isn't a relationship of energy or authority within the case, nor any fraud.
Hoggard, 37, has pleaded not responsible to 2 counts of sexual assault inflicting bodily hurt and certainly one of sexual interference, a cost that pertains to the sexual touching of somebody below 16.
Prosecutors allege the Hedley frontman violently and repeatedly raped a teenage fan and a younger Ottawa lady in Toronto-area resort rooms in separate incidents within the fall of 2016.
In addition they allege he groped the teenager backstage after a Hedley present in Toronto in April 2016, when she was 15.
The Crown has highlighted a number of similarities within the accounts delivered by the complainants, two girls who've by no means met or spoken to one another.
Amongst these similarities are allegations that Hoggard spat on them, slapped them and known as them derogatory names corresponding to "slut" and "whore" through the encounters. Prosecutors say jurors ought to take into account the similarities as indicating a sample of behaviour.
Defence legal professionals allege the groping by no means occurred and the sexual encounters have been consensual. They allege the complainants lied about being raped to cowl up their embarrassment after being rejected by a "rock star."
The defence additionally says any similarities between the complainants' accounts could be attributed to Hoggard's way of life on the time.
In his testimony final week, Hoggard mentioned he didn't have detailed reminiscences of the encounters with the complainants, however that he was sure they consented primarily based on their verbal and non-verbal cues.
He advised the court docket he didn't bear in mind spitting, slapping or calling the complainants names, however that these issues may have occurred since they have been amongst his sexual preferences.
As a part of their inquiries to the court docket Tuesday night, jurors additionally requested whether or not intercourse is taken into account consensual if somebody would not say no but additionally would not say sure.
Citing a ruling from the Courtroom of Enchantment for Ontario, Roberts advised them consent within the context of a sexual assault case is about whether or not the complainant "in her thoughts needed the sexual touching to happen."
"It's the complainant's perspective on the touching that completely drives the evaluation. It's solely subjective in nature," she mentioned, quoting from the enchantment choice.
In the long run, she mentioned, whether or not the complainant subjectively consented is a matter of credibility that should be decided by the jury primarily based on the proof.
Jurors additionally requested for clarification on the proof given by an knowledgeable on the neurobiology of trauma.
Roberts advised them that knowledgeable's proof performed a small position within the trial and was introduced in as a safety measure in order that jurors wouldn't "have interaction in stereotypical reasoning about how so-called 'actual victims' would or ought to reply to a sexual assault."
This report by The Canadian Press was first printed on Might 31, 2022.
Post a Comment