Jian Ghomeshi won’t face second assault trial, case to be resolved by peace bond

[canada-man]

TORONTO — Jian Ghomeshi’s second trial on a single charge of sexual assault will be resolved by way of a peace bond on Wednesday, Postmedia has learned.

The 48-year-old, who was resoundingly acquitted by Ontario Court Judge Bill Horkins in March of a raft of historic sex charges, was facing a separate trial, slated to begin June 6.

But sources say that Tuesday, the Ontario attorney general’s office will formally announce that this remaining case has been “brought forward” to Wednesday.

Though the announcement is expected to say little else, Postmedia sources say at that time Ghomeshi will sign a peace bond under Section 810 of the Criminal Code, agreeing in essence to “keep the peace and be of good behaviour” for as long as year.

Conditions could be placed upon him — such as a non-contact provision with the complainant — but if the bond expires without incident, Ghomeshi could apply for an order to have Toronto police destroy his fingerprints and mug shot.


Once Ghomeshi signs the document, also called a recognizance, prosecutor Michael Callagahan is expected to formally withdraw the charge.

Peace bonds are a pragmatic tool of the courts, often used to deal with allegations of misconduct that either don’t rise to the level of criminal behaviour, or barely meet the threshold.

Ghomeshi’s acquittals came in alleged incidents that dated back to 2002 and 2003 and involved three complainants, all of whom were dating him casually.

The current charge is different in that it goes back to 2008, allegedly happened at the CBC itself, where Ghomeshi was then the beloved golden-boy host of the radio show Q, and involved a female colleague.

There was also purportedly a witness to the incident, which consisted of Ghomeshi allegedly groping the woman and grinding himself into her backside.

This woman, like two of the complainants involved in the first trial, can’t be named because of a publication ban on her identity — despite the fact that in 2014, when the headlines about Ghomeshi first erupted, she made public statements in her own name about what purportedly happened to her.

This latest development is bound to further fan the controversy that greeted Ghomeshi’s earlier acquittals and fuel the ongoing national debate about how police and prosecutors handled not only these complaints in particular but also sex assault allegations in general.

Ghomeshi will appear at the Old City Hall courts Wednesday at 10 a.m.


http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...ial-case-to-be-resolved-by-peace-bond-sources

 

[mandrill]

Basically he has won everything. Peace bonds are often used to "save face" for the Crown in unwinnable cases that the Crown is unwilling to take to trial. This charge must have been as big a piece of shit as the others.

 

[SchlongConery]

I guess he has "won" in the sense that he wasn't convicted. But this guy whose reputation and fame was everything to him, has certainly "lost" all of that.

Do you, as an attorney, ever notice that the longer a criminal proceeding is drawn out, and the more defence options and legal strategies are discussed with the client, the more the client seems to take on the attitude of actually being "innocent", despite the fact that he indeed did commit the offence he has been charged with?

I have a friend who is a practicing criminal lawyer for some 25+ plus years. He says that although he does not make any presumptions etc, that he knows of FOUR of his thousands of clients that he knows to have been "factually innocent". Interesting number I thought.

 

[afterhours]

I have a friend who is a practicing criminal lawyer for some 25+ plus years. He says that although he does not make any presumptions etc, that he knows of FOUR of his thousands of clients that he knows to have been "factually innocent". Interesting number I thought.

Who knows how many clients were innocent unbeknownst to him? A Ghomeshi type he said-she said historical sex assault is a situation where a lawyer may not know whether the client was factually innocent, while the client well may be.

 

[Titalian]

Interesting, even though some of us know what the truth is. He's done, anyway's his career is shot !!! I'd luv to see his resume !! Good luck to him.

 

[fuji]

Interesting, even though some of us know what the truth is. He's done, anyway's his career is shot !!! I'd luv to see his resume !! Good luck to him.

Good riddance. Whether what he did was legal or illegal he is a sick fuck and the world is better off if he goes away.

No sympathy here for a guy who likes beating up women, not even if he found social climbers who consented to it thinking he could make them famous if they put up with the abuse.

 

[whitewaterguy]

Basically he has won everything. Peace bonds are often used to "save face" for the Crown in unwinnable cases that the Crown is unwilling to take to trial. This charge must have been as big a piece of shit as the others.

Nobody has won anything in this fiasco...except the legal system which cashed in. Same thing with the Duffy circus

 

[Bud Plug]

Good riddance. Whether what he did was legal or illegal he is a sick fuck and the world is better off if he goes away.

No sympathy here for a guy who likes beating up women, not even if he found social climbers who consented to it thinking he could make them famous if they put up with the abuse.

This is where the internet diverges from the real world.

In the real world, you can't call someone "a guy who likes beating up women" after he has been acquitted of any such charges (that were not withdrawn by the crown). Hopefully this is just "internet warrior" talk and you know better than to cross that line in conversations away from the computer. Truth may be a defence to a libel/slander law suit, but the onus of demonstrating that truth would be on the party making the slanderous/libellous statements.

There's plenty of publicly available evidence that Ghomeshi is a major league hypocrite and an asshole, and women would be well advised to steer clear of him, but there's not so much publicly available evidence that he's "a guy who likes beating up women".

I don't feel sorry for anything that's happened to him, but that's just because he was an asshole living far too well off a paucity of talent, while preaching to the rest of us from his hypocritical pulpit, all financed on the public dime. Let someone else less annoying suck on the public teat for a while.

 

[Titalian]

Lets just admit, he was his own worst enemy, and after everything is said and done, what's he got left ???

 

[AK-47]

Good riddance. Whether what he did was legal or illegal he is a sick fuck and the world is better off if he goes away

You'd be surprised how many people feel the same way about you

Hopefully this is just "internet warrior" talk and you know better than to cross that line in conversations away from the computer

I hope Ghomeshi rebuilds his career. He's a weirdo who's into bondage and all that other crap, but if it was consensual and he hasnt broken any laws he should get his job back (but probably not at the CBC)

 

[thesun]

I cant really comment much on this issue but I can say this...if an innocent person with an interesting background is falsely accused and has to endure public lashing and loss of good income, I feel sorry for this person. The accuser who lied should be locked up for a long period of time. What worse, real victims that come forward and seek our help and support will be doubted and questioned.

Again, this has nothing to do with Jian because I just don't think it is appropriate of me to make a conclusion without knowing all the facts related to his case.

 

[destillat]

I binge watched season 10 of Trailer Park Boys recently.
Lucy looks just as haggard in the show as she does in real life... I guess no amount of make up can cover that up... shame, I thought she was pretty hot way back when.
But I couldn't help but smirk at the lack of morals that she was willing to promote on the show, for profit, and to the arguable benefit of her career.
And yes, we all know it's TV, but young people especially will watch that and think it's OK to be a jerk of a boyfriend, or a whore of a girlfriend.
That was OK for her to be a part of... ironic, and a bit hypocritical.

 

[fuji]

In the real world, you can't call someone "a guy who likes beating up women" after he has been acquitted of any such charges

His defence was that they consented to being beaten up. Not that he didn't.

So he legally beats women up.

Still scum.

 

[Bud Plug]

His defence was that they consented to being beaten up. Not that he didn't.

So he legally beats women up.

Still scum.

Fuji, to use your language, stop making things up. There is no "defence" that is filed in a criminal proceeding, only a plea of guilty or not guilty.

Further, the court's decision rests entirely on whether to accept the evidence of his accusers. Period. On that analysis, the court made no finding of fact that Ghomeshi had committed violent acts at all.

Here is a link to a copy of the decision: http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2775766/Crown-V-Ghomeshi-decision.pdf

In particular, the court defines the issue as follows:

"[133] Ultimately my assessment of each of the counts against the accused turns entirely on the assessment of the reliability and credibility of the complainant, when measured against the Crown’s burden of proof. With respect to each charge, the only necessary determination is simply this: Does the evidence have sufficient quality and force to establish the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?"

and resolves that issue as follows:

"[139] The harsh reality is that once a witness has been shown to be deceptive and manipulative in giving their evidence, that witness can no longer expect the Court to consider them to be a trusted source of the truth. I am forced to conclude that it is impossible for the Court to have sufficient faith in the reliability or sincerity of these complainants. Put simply, the volume of serious deficiencies in the evidence leaves the Court with a reasonable doubt.
[140] My conclusion that the evidence in this case raises a reasonable doubt is not the same as deciding in any positive way that these events never happened. At the end of this trial, a reasonable doubt exists because it is impossible to determine, with any acceptable degree of certainty or comfort, what is true and what is false. The standard of proof in a criminal case requires sufficient clarity in the evidence to allow a confident acceptance of the essential facts. In these proceedings the bedrock foundation of the Crown’s case is tainted and incapable of supporting any clear determination of the truth.
[141] I have no hesitation in concluding that the quality of the evidence in this case is incapable of displacing the presumption of innocence. The evidence fails to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt."

So, Ghomeshi never entered any admission of any facts in relation to the charges (because such admissions are not part of the Criminal trial process, there being no defence to file), and the Court made no such findings.

As a result, your allegation that Ghomeshi enjoys beating up women is just that, your allegation.

You're not on thin ice here, you're on no ice at all.

 

[Perry Mason]

You're not on thin ice here, you're on no ice at all.

That never bothered fuji before... why should it bother him now?

Perry

 

[AK-47]

His defence was that they consented to being beaten up. Not that he didn't.

So he legally beats women up.

Still scum

He consented to BDSM, he never consented that he beat up women.

Big difference there

 

[fuji]

He consented to BDSM, he never consented that he beat up women.

Big difference there

He found women who were apparently willing to consent to being beaten up because they thought he was their ticket.

He's scum. Not criminal scum. Just scum.

 

[destillat]

I don't give a shit what HE consented to. He found women who were apparently willing to consent to being beaten up because they thought he was their ticket.

He's scum. Not criminal scum. Just scum.

What about the girls?
Are they scum too because they thought that "getting beat up" as you put it was their ticket?
Or are they scum for being utterly dishonest to the police and in front of a judge (under oath) to try to burn someone whom they lost favour with?

 

[fuji]

Fuji, to use your language, stop making things up. There is no "defence" that is filed in a criminal proceeding, only a plea of guilty or not guilty.

Further, the court's decision rests entirely on whether to accept the evidence of his accusers. Period. On that analysis, the court made no finding of fact that Ghomeshi had committed violent acts at all.

Here is a link to a copy of the decision: http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2775766/Crown-V-Ghomeshi-decision.pdf

In particular, the court defines the issue as follows:

"[133] Ultimately my assessment of each of the counts against the accused turns entirely on the assessment of the reliability and credibility of the complainant, when measured against the Crown’s burden of proof. With respect to each charge, the only necessary determination is simply this: Does the evidence have sufficient quality and force to establish the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?"

and resolves that issue as follows:

"[139] The harsh reality is that once a witness has been shown to be deceptive and manipulative in giving their evidence, that witness can no longer expect the Court to consider them to be a trusted source of the truth. I am forced to conclude that it is impossible for the Court to have sufficient faith in the reliability or sincerity of these complainants. Put simply, the volume of serious deficiencies in the evidence leaves the Court with a reasonable doubt.
[140] My conclusion that the evidence in this case raises a reasonable doubt is not the same as deciding in any positive way that these events never happened. At the end of this trial, a reasonable doubt exists because it is impossible to determine, with any acceptable degree of certainty or comfort, what is true and what is false. The standard of proof in a criminal case requires sufficient clarity in the evidence to allow a confident acceptance of the essential facts. In these proceedings the bedrock foundation of the Crown’s case is tainted and incapable of supporting any clear determination of the truth.
[141] I have no hesitation in concluding that the quality of the evidence in this case is incapable of displacing the presumption of innocence. The evidence fails to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt."

So, Ghomeshi never entered any admission of any facts in relation to the charges (because such admissions are not part of the Criminal trial process, there being no defence to file), and the Court made no such findings.

As a result, your allegation that Ghomeshi enjoys beating up women is just that, your allegation.

You're not on thin ice here, you're on no ice at all.

He admitted in other forums that he beats up women, but claimed they consented. The judge found no evidence of a crime, but there's lots of evidence that he is a dirt bag.

I reject your implicit claim that the courts define right and wrong. They define criminal versus non criminal. Lots of wrong things are legal.

 

[destillat]

Lots of wrong things are legal.

Ya, like lying under oath like the girls did.
Wait... that is NOT legal.