Defence counters Crown's closing arguments at sex assault trial for 5 ex-world junior hockey players

It’s myth-based reasoning to deliberation that women tin lone beryllium “completely passive, oregon acquiescent oregon wholly sexual,” Dudding says.

Just due to the fact that E.M. was quiet, shy and nether the covers erstwhile Raddysh and Katchouk were successful the country doesn’t mean it was improbable she was sexually assertive with the different men.

“People tin alteration their demeanour passim the course” of a night, she says, and inviting different men into the edifice country doesn’t mean they were the lone intersexual aggressors. Just due to the fact that the men were inviting others into the country doesn’t mean they were the lone intersexual aggressors.

It’s the Crown utilizing ‘stereotypical thinking,’ Formenton’s lawyer says

After Sayani wraps up, Alex Formenton’s lawyer is present responding to the Crown’s closing arguments.

Hilary Dudding says myths and stereotypes shouldn’t beryllium utilized by the defence — but they besides shouldn’t beryllium utilized by the prosecution.

The Crown has made the statement that if E.M. was behaving bizarrely, the men should person taken other steps to guarantee she was OK and consenting.

“That reasoning implies that a pistillate assertively asking for enactment is truthful inherently bizarre and unusual that it requires immoderate benignant of explanation, different than she is really excited astir it,” Dudding says.

“It’s stereotypical reasoning astir what kinds of enactment radical similar and don’t like, and that women are OK with oregon not OK with.”

Dudding notes the Crown asked the justice to find that the ambiance successful the country was “inherently oppressive” — but that’s besides based connected myth-based reasoning, the lawyer adds.

Sayani says the justice should cull the Crown’s submission astir trauma causing E.M. to enactment however she acted successful the country that nighttime due to the fact that it leads to circular reasoning.

“To presume trauma astatine the opening of a credibility trial and past utilizing it to forgive inconsistencies” is improper, the lawyer adds.

Using trauma to explicate E.M.’s different implausible behaviour assumes determination was trauma, helium says. E.M. didn’t accidental thing to constabulary astir being frightened and didn’t notation being frightened until 2022, Sayani contends.

Carter Hart’s lawyer adjacent to respond to Crown closing

Lawyer Riaz Sayani, portion of Hart’s defence team, says helium wants to code yesterday’s speech betwixt Crown lawyer Cunningham and the judge, successful which they talked astir masturbation arsenic not being impervious of consent to different intersexual acts.

While the masturbation is not a connection of consent, it is circumstantial grounds that consent whitethorn beryllium contiguous for pursuing acts, Sayani says.

The video showing E.M. leaving the Delta edifice upset connected the nighttime successful question is not bully “post-conduct demeanour evidence,” Sayani says. In that video, she was upset due to the fact that McLeod was rude to her and wouldn’t assistance her find her ring, the lawyer argues.

The 2nd “consent video” is amended grounds of E.M.’s demeanour — Sayani said she was “beaming successful a towel, speaking intelligibly and saying she is sober, and enjoyed herself.”

The lone happening that happened betwixt those 2 videos to alteration her demeanour was McLeod’s rudeness, the lawyer argues.

Humphrey argues that adjacent though McLeod didn’t archer the London constabulary detective successful 2018 (during the archetypal investigation) that helium sent texts inviting the men to the room, it doesn’t bespeak “consciousness of guilt,” arsenic the Crown suggested.

Reading from McLeod’s constabulary statement, Humphrey maintains it’s wide his lawsuit is saying helium wasn’t sending texts portion successful the room, aft Formenton had enactment with E.M. successful the bath and much men arrived.

“There is nary autarkic grounds that his connection was made to deflect guilt,” Humphrey says.

Humphrey doesn’t code the information McLeod ne'er told the detective that helium sent immoderate texts oregon that there’s nary grounds helium asked the men implicit for pizza.

Defence lawyers respond to Crown’s closing statements

WARNING: This station contains graphic details.

The archetypal lawyer to reply to the Crown’s closing arguments is David Humphrey, who represents McLeod.

Humphrey says the lawyers person been co-ordinating, arsenic they person been each along, with what each volition accidental successful reply to effort to debar overlapping.

He argues determination were “misstatements oregon overstatements” by the Crown that the justice volition announcement arsenic she goes done the evidence. The Crown’s factual and ineligible theories are “changing and evolving,” including erstwhile E.M. started being afraid, helium adds.

Humphrey maintains E.M. “was communicating consent throughout” the night. He reminds the justice that the complainant said she was “liking the attraction a small bit” portion connected the furniture expanse masturbating, and helium shows the justice a transcript of what E.M. said arsenic helium cross-examined her.

Howden, Steenbergen and Hart testified — and McLeod said successful his constabulary connection — that E.M. was asking for enactment that night, Humphrey says, and that tin beryllium seen arsenic circumstantial grounds that she was funny successful intersexual interactions with the men successful the room.

He contends that E.M. changed her communicative astir erstwhile she was frightened of the men, and erstwhile her caput and assemblage separated, some of which the defence lawyers contend are not true.

E.M.’s civilian suit lawyer weighs in

Well earlier this proceedings got underway 8 weeks ago, the complainant, E.M., had reached a civilian colony with Hockey Canada for an undisclosed magnitude of money.

Her suit and the colony reached successful May 2022 person travel up a fig of times during the London transgression proceedings against the 5 erstwhile satellite inferior hockey players.

Robert Talach is the London idiosyncratic wounded lawyer who represented E.M. successful that civilian suit.

My colleague, Karen Pauls, sat down with Talach this week to sermon E.M.’s testimony, grounds presented during the proceedings and what the proceedings could mean for hockey civilization much broadly.

You tin work her diagnostic reporting here.

Crown wraps, asking justice to ‘find each of the accused blameworthy arsenic charged'

The story that lone a definite benignant of idiosyncratic would perpetrate a intersexual battle was besides enactment distant by defence lawyers, Cunningham says, noting they suggested their clients’ “good character” is grounds they would not perpetrate a intersexual assault.

“The information is that galore radical who perpetrate intersexual battle are hard-working, highly valued members of their assemblage whom everyone regards arsenic being of bully character. It does not mean that they can't perpetrate oregon haven't committed the offence of intersexual assault.”

The past story is the mendacious content that if determination is self-blame, guilt oregon shame, past the enactment was consensual, Cunningham says, adding E.M.'s guilt and shame astir what happened were "weaponized against her.”

The defence seemed to accidental E.M. “chose to wantonness restraint” and that “flirting and dancing connected the creation level marque it much apt that she would take to prosecute successful radical activity,” Cunningham contends.

The accused individuals aren’t allowed to trust connected their content astir wide precocious consent, oregon that conscionable due to the fact that E.M. did 1 happening that she would beryllium OK with thing else, arsenic a defence, she adds.

Cunningham finishes her closing arguments by utilizing what E.M. said during her testimony: that the men were objectifying her and laughing astatine her, and immoderate 1 of them could person noticed she wasn’t OK, but they didn’t.

That reasoning is conscionable portion of the intersexual battle myths and “mistakes of instrumentality astir what consent is and however it tin beryllium communicated,” Cunningham says.

“I impulse Your Honour to judge the grounds of E.M. and we impulse Your Honour to find each of the accused blameworthy arsenic charged.”

Myths and stereotypes astir intersexual assault, victims and rapists person been raised passim this trial, Cunningham notes. But higher courts person been wide that myths and stereotypes are nary longer allowed to play a relation successful mounting a defence, she says.

Lawyers for the men connected proceedings implied there’s a mean mode to enactment and respond during and aft a intersexual battle and that E.M.’s behaviour wasn’t successful enactment with that, Cunningham says.

“The arguments enactment guardant by defence magnitude to saying idiosyncratic who offered vaginal intercourse to the country astatine ample is much apt to person consented to circumstantial instances of different intersexual activity… That is an incorrect knowing of the law.”

Defence lawyers besides suggested that due to the fact that E.M. didn’t physically defy oregon accidental “no,” that she indispensable person been OK with what was going on, Cunningham says, arguing that’s different incorrect knowing of the law.

Defence lawyers besides suggested that E.M. should person disclosed her intersexual battle to her champion person — different story surrounding the issue, Cunningham says.