The judge overturned the conviction of the sexual assault victim in Ontario, who violated the publication ban in her name
Ontario judge has set aside Convictions of victims of sexual assault in Kitchener She was found guilty of violating the publication ban to protect her identity.
The woman was called CL in court and was fined in March.
On Thursday, in a virtual hearing, the conviction of the appellant CL, lawyer Robin Parker told the Kitchener court that she was sexually assaulted by her ex-husband.
Parker said that the trial judge called this a “violent attack” and the defendant’s “entitlements and disrespect for the victim’s autonomy is shocking.”
Parker said that when the royal family asked for an injunction at the beginning of the assault case, the injunction was not in court, adding that the injunction was not discussed with the injunction, and she disagreed.
The release ban is still in effect.
CL sent the written reasons for the judgment to some family and friends via email. The transcript found CL and her ex-husband, who was convicted of sexually assaulting her.
The ex-husband complained to the police: “Parker (CL) was criminally charged, prosecuted and convicted,” Parker said in court.
She was fined $2,000 and ordered to pay the victim’s surcharge.
That shield turned into a sword
Parker said that the law clearly stipulates that sending the decision via email to a group does not violate the publication ban.
“If it is the law, it will indeed have a profound impact not only on the victims, but also on the media and civil society.”
In court on Thursday, Crown Prince Julia Forward said that her office admitted CL’s appeal.
Forward said that although CL has pleaded guilty, he should not raise allegations of obstruction of justice.
“There is a jurisdictional error. This is the position of the royal family. The conviction cannot be convicted. I ask for permission to appeal.”
Judge Paul Sweeney agreed and reversed CL’s conviction. Similarly, all fines paid by CL will also be refunded to her.
Parker said that Thursday’s decision was the correct one, but it involved the progress of the case and “should be stopped before then.”
“The purpose of prohibiting publications in sexual assault cases is to protect the privacy of the complainant, because unfortunately there is stigma and stigma in the reporting process.”
However, the publication ban has become another means of depriving victims of their autonomy.
Parker said: “In this case, the shield turned into a sword. CL’s convicted attacker took the sword against her, and the system let him use it.”
Parker said that he hopes this case will be used for future education within the judicial system.
“CL doesn’t want everything to happen to her in vain.”
After CL pleaded guilty in March, the case attracted national attention.
Ottawa lawyer Emilie Taman told the CBC radio host Matt Galloway trend, The case is “unfair to justice.”
Taman said in an interview last month: “The public’s confidence in the court’s ability to adequately handle sexual assault cases-to some extent-is so fragile.”
In this case, the shield turned into a sword, CL’s convicted attacker took the sword against her, and the system allowed him to use it.-Lawyer Robin Parker (Robin Parker)
“Every time it encounters a case like this, it sends a message to people who may wish to file sexual assault charges, saying that it will be a process that will tire you until you have no dignity.”
In an interview following the ruling on Thursday, Parker told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Kitchener-Waterloo that she was not surprised by the attention the case had caused.
She said: “The case itself is indeed unusual. It raises a question that everyone asks,’How did this happen?'” “So many people have failed, from the police who decided to prosecute her to the decision against the public. It’s unbelievable to go to the bureaucratic office from the royal office that is beneficial and continue to be beneficial to the entire system.”
“The starting point of education”
Parker said that the entire law on the publication ban is “screaming” for reform. She said that the police, royal prosecutors and judges should clearly explain to the victims the meaning of the ban.
Parker said that although they did not want to be named, other victims may be like this. This should be their right and ability.
She said: “The ban should be lifted at the request of the victim. It must be easy and direct.”
Parker also said that her only concern about the latest decision is the official admission of the case, which means that the facts have not been explained in court.
She said: “The court never hears all the facts and never makes a judgment on what happened so that others can learn from it.”
“When we say that what we hope to happen is not in vain, we hope that this case will be the starting point for education, to provide education and training on the victim’s experience to the court, the Crown office. The judicial system.”