The number of services in place for victims of crime in Canada is vast, and aim to make an overwhelming process as manageable as possible.
They range from providing court orientation and preparation to assessing the ability of a child witness to testify. Some proceedings will be relaxed slightly depending on the situation, and the victim may be able to give their testimony via video link so they don’t have to face the accused.
Robynne Henry The Henry Hype
With all of these options in place for victims, I find it sad when judges have to be reminded of laws in place meant to protect them further during a trial.
In the past two months alone, the Supreme Court of Canada sent two cases back for re-trials when they found they violated 276(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, commonly known as the rape shield law. It prohibits the victim’s prior sexual history from being presented in court, unless it’s relevant to the case at hand. One of the re-trials was for the 2011 death of Cindy Gladue, an Edmonton indigenous woman.
In the original trial of Bradley Barton, Gladue’s history in the sex trade suggested to the jury she would have consented to the sexual activity that resulted in her death.
The aim of the rape shield law is to protect victims in court proceedings from the idea that just because they consented to sexual activity in the past they’re likely to again, and they aren’t less worthy of being believed because of their past sexual history.
I think this is a very important law to have in place to protect victims, but is useless unless it’s enforced.
Everyone has the right to a fair trial, but that shouldn’t come at the expense of the victim. I can’t think of a case where a person’s past sexual history would be relevant. It could only have the jurors look down on them. In a world that’s just grasping the severity of violence against women through movements like #MeToo, the courts should use everything at their disposal to help the victims.
The Supreme Court of Canada shouldn’t have to issue re-trials due to evidence being used that shouldn’t have been submitted in the first place.
I think Justice Andromache Karakatsanis said it best in a ruling stating Patrick John Goldfinch has to face a new trial for sexual assault after evidence was presented that he had a “friends with benefits” relationship with the alleged victim.
”No means no, and only yes means yes: even in the context of an established relationship, even part way through a sexual encounter, and even if the act is one the complainant has routinely consented to in the past,” she said in the ruling.
