Quote:

 

The Canadian Judicial Council is reviewing the conduct of a Federal Court judge who questioned the efforts of a sexual assault complainant to fend off her attacker.

The council announced Monday it will review the behaviour of Robin Camp during a 2014 case he adjudicated while serving as an Alberta Provincial Court judge. The case involved the alleged rape of a 19-year-old woman by a Calgary man, whom she accused of sexually assaulting her over a bathroom sink during a house party.

Peter MacKay's friends, colleagues make up 6 of 9 judge appointees
Ontario attorney general, Quebec justice minister take swipe at Peter MacKay
Peter MacKay skipping Canadian Bar Association's annual conference

The review comes after a complaint from four law professors at Dalhousie University and the University of Calgary who described Camp as "dismissive, if not contemptuous" toward sexual assault laws and the rules of evidence.

Quote:

 

This was a rape case. Where it occurred doesn't come into it.

margrace

Nov 11 2015, 01:40 AM

Back to why women asked for it the old argument. Men just don't get it.

Quote:

 

Alexander Scott Wagar was acquitted in the 2014 sexual assault case, but last month, Alberta's Court of Appeal ordered a new trial.

Trotsky

Nov 11 2015, 01:45 AM

margrace

Nov 11 2015, 01:40 AM

Back to why women asked for it the old argument. Men just don't get it.

Perhaps because too many women lie about their being raped.
Bringing charges like this has too readily put the entire burden of proof on the man. It should be shared equally and in the courtroom the woman should not be treated any gentler than the guy is.

Is the jury finding totally irrelevant here":

Quote:

 

Alexander Scott Wagar was acquitted in the 2014 sexual assault case, but last month, Alberta's Court of Appeal ordered a new trial.

The jury heard ALL the evidence, unlike we who must deal with just a couple slanted newspaper snippets.

I guess Alberta has no protections from double jeopardy so the province will torture this guy all over again.

If some uber judges think this judge needs to be removed or even imprisoned, let them get rid of him, but not at the expense of some guy whom a jury of his peers found he had consentual sex and the complaining woman lied.

Quote:

 

The first disturbing aspect of Judge Camp’s reasons is with respect to his legal analysis. As Professor Koshan notes, Judge Camp suggested that the limits on questioning the complainant’s sexual history “hamstring the defence” and arose from “very, very incursive legislation” (Crown Factum, para. 73). Having made this comment, he then proceeded to allow cross-examination in this regard without complying with the requirements for a hearing under section 276(2) and section 276.1 of the Criminal Code.

Judge Camp also criticized the Canadian legal position that a judge ought not to consider whether a complainant reports the assault immediately. As described in the Crown’s Factum:

In the Crown’s preliminary submissions, the Trial Judge commented that the Complainant “abused the first opportunity to report” before conceding this was “no longer contemporarily relevant”. In the Crown’s final submissions, he commented that the recent complaint doctrine (defined as complaining to your family or someone in authority as soon as you can) was “followed by every civilized legal system in the world for thousands of years” and “had its reasons” although “[a]t the moment it’s not the law”. When the Crown submitted that the antiquated thinking had been set aside for a reason, he replied “I hope you don’t live too long, Ms. Mograbee” (Crown’s Factum, at para 58).

The Supreme Court of Canada has been clear (in R v DD, [2000] 2 SCR 275 at para 60-63) that adverse inferences as to credibility, premised on the mere fact that a complainant failed to ‘raise a hue and cry,’ constitute an error of law. Judge Camp’s comments suggest that he was aware of that rule, but skeptical as to its validity given its departure from the historical practices of “every civilized legal system.”

The Crown also details in its Factum Judge Camp’s troubling approach to the law of consent, in which he appeared to place the onus on the complainant to “make it clear that she’s not consenting” (Crown’s Factum, at para 97) and also to assess the fact of the complainant’s consent from the respondent’s point of view (which would be relevant to a defence of a mistaken belief in consent, but not to the existence of consent itself) (Crown’s factum at paras 92-99).

In its reasons, the Court of Appeal stated “we are satisfied that the trial judge’s comments throughout the proceedings and in his reasons gave rise to doubts about the trial judge’s understanding of the law governing sexual assaults” (Wagar, at para 4).