BristolUK

Jian Ghomeshi found not guilty on choking and all sex assault charges - CBC News - Latest Canada, World, Entertainment and Business News

Hardly a surprise given what came out in the court case (and kiwilass mentioned on a previous thread).

dbd33

This year, meh. Last year I cared. Last year I had him in the death pool.

scrubbedexpat091

Figured this would be the outcome. Although if were a jury trial of mixed genders and an aquittal the protesters would have fuel.

Never been a fan of single judge decisions on guilt or not guilty.

JonboyE

If, and I know it is a big if, the reports of the trial were accurate it would have been very difficult to say the case was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

bats

Vsecond trial on a different assault charge is scheduled for June.

BristolUK

I must confess to being more than a little puzzled by the wait between court case and verdict.

If it's a jury trial they pretty much go and reach their verdict. Some may take a bit longer to reach their verdict but it follows presentation of evidence, cross examination of witnesses, closing arguments...

How come a judge gets to sit on it for a few weeks? Is there something behind the scenes that influences a decision?

Does their pondering everything they heard mean they can't concentrate properly on cases they hear in the meantime? Do they get a 'Eureka' moment when hearing another case?

What if they consider half a dozen different cases over the same period, might they get their cases muddled?

Has there ever been anything recorded where a judge instinctively went one way and with the passage of time ended up ruling the opposite way?

Juries are supposed to disregard anything not heard in court. Isn't there a danger a judge may do the same because of the time scale?

We're not talking pre-sentence reports here, this is all before the verdict.

It doesn't seem particularly transparent.

JonboyE

This is just a guess as I don't know, but maybe the Judge spends his time during the trial managing the trial rather than weighing and assessing the evidence presented. Once the trial is over (s)he can then review the evidence in peace and quiet to come to a verdict.

Almost Canadian

In England, in a Court of first instance, it was very unusual to have a reserved judgment, there were almost all ex tempore. In Canada, virtually all that I have been involved with are reserved and very few are ex tempore.

I believe it's the Canadian way. Why do it in a day, when you can take 3 months?

Almost Canadian

IMVHO the best way to assess evidence is to do so as it is given. Reading transcripts a month or two later does not enable one to assess body language, speed of response etc.

There is very little "management of issues" during a trial. Applications to include/exclude evidence should have been resolved long before the trial starts. The trial judge's (or a jury's) duty is to assess the evidence. While I accept that, once that has been done, one may need to review the law, that should have been done prior to the trial so that the assessor of facts knows what they need to be looking for to determine the case.

scrubbedexpat091

Seems one issue protestors and others have is they feel the women were put on trial and dont like the fact those accused can remain silent and not take the stand.

Based on tweets and FB posts of various people from various websites.

Almost Canadian

The women were not on trial for anything, but the accused is entitled to ask questions so that their credibility is assessed.

The accuses does not have to assist the prosecution in any way and, if they are unable to prove the case on the evidence they provide that is the end of it.

scrubbedexpat091

I agree. Not sure why the protestors think we should have a system where the accused helps the prosecution and have no right to cross examine the accusers.

Based on the comments being made elsewhere thst seems to be what people protesting want.

I would hate to be that judge though.

BristolUK

Interesting idea. It doesn't sound a great way to do it though...you know, consider one aspect of a case...try a completely different case and then go back to the first and so on.

Having said that I suppose many of us have done precisely that in our working lives. Perhaps without the consequences for an individual though.
That makes a lot of sense.

The whole thing does seem ripe for behind the scenes shenanigans like in Yes Minister or, more recently, the French TV series Spiral, with pressure on judges to come up with an expedient decision.

dave_j

Once the system allows a single individual to decide the outcome of a legalistic affair then I'm afraid the outcome becomes a lottery.
One would think that logic would dictate that the outcome of any case would be independent of judgement but time and again this is demonstrated not to be so.
How many times have you heard the phrase 'overturned on appeal'?
How many times have you seen a supreme court judgement with a split verdict?
Such judgements simply demonstrate the fickle nature of legal judgement and the unreliability of the judiciary to think clearly.

MillieF

The whole legal system makes me queasy, probably because I don't understand it, and it has been wrapped in a covering that makes it non user friendly. We used to have a system, in the UK certainly, where women on the stand had to justify their clothing, previous sexual behavior and reason for being out in public, which I think, in some cases, has changed now? In Canada, it would seem - in cities - that women are to be believed without question and shouldn't be held to account for their statements.

Is, or was, this man well liked, or has the power of the media just thrown him under the bus do you think?