Not guilty but not so innocent either.Not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.And not worth it, maybe: The invasion of privacy, the savagery of cross-examination, the dismantling of a woman’s character.There was no surprise in the acquittal Wednesday of three off-duty cops charged with sexual assault.Read more:‘It is simply not safe to convict,’ judge rules after Toronto officers accused of sex assault found not guiltyThere was just a judge — a wise, widely respected female judge — palpably gritting her teeth, on the bench reading aloud and in her written decision issued, which found the defendants not guilty of forcing sexual acts upon a non-consenting female parking officer.And one lone voice yelping out a “Yeah!” in the courtroom as the verdict was delivered — the sister of a defendant unable to contain her relief. But even that interjection sounded heavily inappropriate in this setting and was abruptly stilled.It helps to love the law, as Justice Anne Molloy clearly does, in fraught cases such as this. The law pivots on a presumption of innocence even for those accused of sexual assault, just as it applies in any other criminal offence. Amidst competing testimony and conflicting evidence, it was the Crown’s responsibility to prove the case brought against Constables Leslie Nyznik, Sameer Kara and Joshua Cabero. The prosecution failed, as it so often does, when one person’s word is pitted against another person’s word and the alleged offence is sexual.“Although the slogan ‘Believe the victim’ has become popularized of late, it has no place in a criminal trial,” Molloy wrote. “To approach a trial with the assumption that the complainant is telling the truth is the equivalent of imposing a presumption of guilt on the person accused of sexual assault and then placing a burden on him to prove his innocence. That is antithetical to the fundamental principle ...
|
