Video Transcript:
00:00:00 [Roger Peterson – CTV News]
The verdict in the 2018 World Junior Hockey sexual assault trial will be announced this week.
00:00:05 [Roger Peterson – CTV News]
The closing submissions wrapped up in early June with the Crown arguing that the complainant did not voluntarily agree to the sexual acts that took place in a London hotel room in 2018.
00:00:15 [Roger Peterson – CTV News]
Defence lawyers challenged that in their closing submissions, questioning the complainant’s credibility.
00:00:20 [Roger Peterson – CTV News]
Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dylan Dube, and Cal Foote have pleaded not guilty to sexual assault.
00:00:27 [Roger Peterson – CTV News]
The judge in the case will announce the verdict on Thursday morning at 10:00.
00:00:34 [Roger Peterson – CTV News]
And joining me now is Alex Karapancev, Criminal Defence Lawyer.
00:00:38 [Roger Peterson – CTV News]
Alex, thanks very much for joining us.
00:00:40 [Alex Karapancev – Criminal Defence Lawyer]
Thanks for having me.
00:00:41 [Roger Peterson – CTV News]
We await the judge’s decision. Who do you think presented the stronger case?
00:00:48 [Alex Karapancev – Criminal Defence Lawyer]
I think it was clear that the Crown had a very uphill battle in its prosecution.
I think the defence did a great job at outlining credibility deficits with the complainant, comparing her testimony to video evidence that existed contradicting her, outlining inconsistencies between her evidence and that of the other Crown witnesses.
And I think overall, it’s clear that the defence will likely prevail, and I expect all of these defendants to be acquitted or most of them.
00:01:17 [Roger Peterson – CTV News]
How difficult is it for a sexual assault trial—for both the prosecutors and the defence—to present in these cases?
00:01:25 [Alex Karapancev – Criminal Defence Lawyer]
Well, it is difficult for both sides, and that’s often because there isn’t contemporaneous, corroborative, or confirmatory evidence.
What we’re typically left with is the word of the complainant and the word of the defendant or defendants.
And that’s why the credibility of the complainant and her reliability is often the biggest issue at a trial like this—because the burden is on the Crown to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defence doesn’t have to prove anything.
And if the Crown’s main witness is deemed a non-credible witness or a non-reliable witness, the Crown simply can’t discharge that high onus that it has to meet.
00:02:03 [Roger Peterson – CTV News]
And now this—oh, sorry. Go ahead.
00:02:05 [Alex Karapancev – Criminal Defence Lawyer]
I was just gonna add, however, in this case, there was evidence.
We heard about the consent videos where the complainant provided video evidence following the alleged sex acts, which only goes to hurt the Crown’s case.
00:02:18 [Roger Peterson – CTV News]
And now with this being judge-only, is that better for the defence or the Crown?
And the idea that, like, a jury could come in in maybe a few days with a decision, and this judge has taken six weeks, I believe, almost, to put together her decision.
00:02:33 [Alex Karapancev – Criminal Defence Lawyer]
Yeah. I think the reason for that is because juries don’t give reasons for their verdict.
A jury just says guilty or not guilty, whereas a judge has to provide reasons for her decision.
And those reasons have to be cogent.
They have to explain why she finds the facts that she does find, and I expect that’s why the judge took her time to develop thoughtful reasons.
00:02:57 [Roger Peterson – CTV News]
And—sorry, put two questions in at one there.
Who benefits, do you think, from having a judge-only trial—the defendant, the defence, or the prosecution?
00:03:05 [Alex Karapancev – Criminal Defence Lawyer]
Well, I think in this case, the defence is probably happy that the jury got discharged because we heard a few of those jurors took issue with some of the defence lawyers.
You never want to be running a defence on a case where the jury may have preconceived notions about you as a lawyer.
So I’m sure the defence now feels better having a judge-alone trial.
But I think—I don’t think there is a hard and fast rule as to what benefits which side the most.
With a jury, the Crown has to convince 12 members of the community of the guilt of the accused, which is a high burden.
But on the other hand, with a judge-alone trial, judges are trained in the law. Judges have experience judging the credibility and reliability of witnesses.
So there are pros and cons to each mode of trial for both sides.
00:03:53 [Roger Peterson – CTV News]
And just one last quick question—can we expect any precedent from this case?
00:03:59 [Roger Peterson – CTV News]
I don’t think so. I think at—
00:04:01 [Alex Karapancev – Criminal Defence Lawyer]
At the end of the day, although this case captivated the nation, it really comes down to simple principles like consent, credibility, and reliability.
I don’t think the case itself will be precedent-setting unless it launches a further discussion in society and legislative change, based on how our community views the decision and if it believes that the law needs to be changed as a result of it.
00:04:24 [Roger Peterson – CTV News]
Okay. Alex, we appreciate your expertise on this. Thanks for joining us.
00:04:28 [Alex Karapancev – Criminal Defence Lawyer]
Thanks for having me.
