Jacob Hoggard trial: Jurors ask questions associated to consent

Spread the love

Jurors within the sexual assault trial of Canadian musician Jacob Hoggard requested extra questions associated to consent Sunday as deliberations continued for a sixth day. The jury requested the decide to elucidate how a complainant’s phrases and actions may very well be used to attempt to elevate an inexpensive doubt about her proof associated to her mind-set on the time of the alleged incident with out falling again on stereotypes and assumptions concerning how sexual assault victims ought to behave. It requested for examples associated to the second complainant, an Ottawa girl who met Hoggard on the relationship app Tinder in November 2016 and travelled to see him in Toronto later that month. The jury additionally requested for readability on what would signify real, slightly than willful, ignorance of a complainant’s lack of consent. Hoggard, the lead singer for the band Hedley, has pleaded not responsible to 2 counts of sexual assault inflicting bodily hurt and one in every of sexual interference, a cost that refers back to the sexual touching of somebody underneath 16. READ MORE: Hoggard didn’t have place of energy over complainants in intercourse assault trial, decide says The Crown alleges he groped a teenage fan after a Hedley present in April 2016, after which violently raped her in a Toronto-area resort that September, after she turned 16. Prosecutors allege he additionally violently raped a younger Ottawa girl in late November 2016 in a downtown Toronto resort. Each complainants testified they cried and stated no all through the encounters, and had been left bleeding and bruised afterwards. The defence argues the groping did not occur and the sexual encounters had been consensual. Canadian musician Jacob Hoggard arrives alongside his spouse Rebekah Asselstine, for his intercourse assault trial on the Toronto courthouse on Tuesday, Could 10, 2022 in Toronto. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Cole Burston Hoggard testified throughout trial that whereas he would not have an in depth reminiscence of the encounters, he’s assured the complainants consented based mostly on their verbal and non-verbal cues. In her solutions to jurors Sunday, Ontario Superior Court docket Justice Gillian Roberts stated she couldn’t present particular examples on how you can assess the second complainant’s proof for worry of interfering with their fact-finding course of, however may remind them of some basic “authorized propositions” on the problem. Roberts first repeated her directions to not make assumptions based mostly on stereotypes about how an “supreme sufferer” ought to act. “It isn’t an error to reach at a factual conclusion that will logically mirror a stereotype if the factual conclusion is just not drawn from a stereotypical inference however as an alternative is predicated on the proof,” she stated. She additionally stated jurors may take a look at what the complainant stated and did on the time and ask themselves whether it is attainable to attract a “affordable inference that she did consent.” “Do not forget that an inexpensive doubt should not be speculative. There have to be one thing the complainant did or stated from which an inexpensive doubt about consent could also be drawn,” she stated. As for the query of real or willful ignorance of lack of consent, Roberts advised jurors it would not apply. It is agreed that the problem in every case is whether or not the Crown has confirmed past an inexpensive doubt that the complainant didn’t consent to the sexual exercise, she stated. If jurors settle for the complainants’ proof about what occurred within the resort room, meaning they’ve rejected Hoggard’s proof and settle for he knew the complainants weren’t consenting, the decide stated. Over the past two days, the jury has requested the courtroom to replay the majority of the proof given by the 2 complainants and by Hoggard. That is after jurors twice indicated they had been deadlocked on “some” of the counts. This report by The Canadian Press was first printed June 5, 2022.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *