The decision relates to verdicts by appeals courts from two separate sexual assault cases - one in British Columbia and one in Ontario - both of which had said the changes made to rape shield laws four years ago affected an accused's right to a fair trial.
The rights of a complainant, and the public, must weigh on the fairness of a trial as well, the court said. The Criminal Code says evidence of a complainant's prior sexual activities that are unrelated to the charges at hand can only be admitted with permission of a judge following a private hearing, and cannot be used to infer that the complainant is less trustworthy or more likely to have consented.
Under the new laws, those emails likely would have to be disclosed in a pre-screening process, where the complainant has standing. The judges said while progress has been made by Parliament to balance the rights of an accused to a fair trial with the public interest, and the rights of a complainant to dignity, equality and privacy, “more needs to be done.
Those include that someone who consults a mental health professional is not credible, that failing to immediately report a sexual offence means it didn't happen or that a “real victim” would avoid all contact with the accused after an alleged assault took place.
We need ethnic diversity on this panel of Supreme court judges, it currently does not reflect the changing demographic of the people. This is why their decisions lack relevance because it is based off one perspective. Groupthink to the 10th power
Health Health Latest News, Health Health Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: CTVNews - 🏆 1. / 99 Read more »