Judge prepares verdict in Roberts case
A Paradise man charged with criminally harassing a woman and sexually assaulting her with a weapon will receive the verdict from a provincial court judge at the end of the month.
Having presided over a weeklong trial, Judge Jacqueline Brazil will deliver her verdict in the case Sept. 30.
Closing arguments in the trial of 51-year-old John Roberts, a businessman and former mayoral candidate for the town of Paradise, began Friday and wrapped up Tuesday afternoon, with prosecutor Nicole Hurley describing the complainant’s evidence as “straightforward and unembellished, and unchallenged for the most part.”
The complainant, a woman whose identity is protected by a publication ban — as is done in all sexual assault cases — testified she had first gone to the RNC in January 2018, after her vehicle had been spray-painted with the words “Two-dollar whore” and a gas can left on her doorstep. She said she believed Roberts was responsible, because he had been calling her repeatedly and they had gotten into an argument on the phone the previous day.
The woman told the court about Roberts getting angry with her over Christmas, and child protection authorities calling her the next day, saying they had received a complaint from a man alleging she had left her child home alone.
The woman said Roberts called her persistently from a blocked number, and she believed the calls were made by him because he was on the other end of the line on the few times she answered. A police investigation later confirmed the calls had come from Roberts.
One night the woman called the police because Roberts had called her over and over, she said, and had arrived in his vehicle outside her home, where he revved the engine.
The night Roberts is alleged to have sexually assaulted the woman, they had been having consensual sex that ended when he picked up a beer bottle, she said. She cried during her testimony as she described telling him to stop and attempting to block him.
On Tuesday, Hurley rejected defence lawyer Rosellen Sullivan’s argument that it would be impossible for Roberts to insert a beer bottle in the woman’s vagina against her will, saying there had been no medical or other evidence to suggest this was the case. Hurley also took issue with Sullivan’s argument that the woman had not cried during the alleged assault nor sought medical attention, and had not been injured.
“The fact that she did not cry, bleed or seek medical attention does not mean that she was not assaulted by Mr. Roberts in exactly the way that she described,” Hurley said. “We don’t have perfect victims. We don’t have people that experience trauma in an ideal way. Everybody experiences trauma in a way that is unique to them.”
Hurley suggested the judge put no weight on testimony provided by Roberts’ neighbour, who told the court he had contacted the RNC about a vehicle parking late at night in the driveway he shares with Roberts, and testimony provided by the investigating officer, who said she had run the plate number provided to her and found the vehicle belonged to the complainant.
On the stand, the neighbour had told the court a series of photos of a vehicle in the driveway had been taken by his partner from their home on one of the nights in question. Under cross-examination, the man admitted they were not his photos and may have been taken by Roberts’ surveillance cameras.
The licence plate number had been given to the police officer by Roberts, Hurley argued, with no other evidence that the woman’s vehicle had been near the home.
The judge questioned Hurley about an alleged heated exchange between the woman and Roberts one day at a drycleaning outlet where Roberts had been working.
One of his coworkers testified the woman had entered the business with a dress to be drycleaned, and Roberts had told her that she shouldn’t be there. The woman swore at him and told him that she could go wherever she wanted, the court heard.
Brazil quoted from the elements of a criminal harassment charge, noting she has to assess whether or not Roberts’ actions caused the complainant to fear for her safety and whether her fear was reasonable.
“If you were in fear of somebody, would you initiate a confrontation with them and tell them to go eff themselves and then stick around?” Brazil asked Hurley, who pointed out the incident was after the alleged harassment period, the woman had gone to the drycleaners for a legitimate reason, she had believed Roberts to be working in the back of the business, and she had been accompanied by another person, which she testified had helped calm her fear.
Brazil pointed out the woman had also testified she had applied for a peace bond against Roberts, but when the time came to testify at that hearing, she had withdrawn the application, partly because she was too frightened to take the stand, despite other people being present.
Fear of testifying isn’t the same as fear of a person, Hurley argued.
In her closing submissions last week, Sullivan argued the complainant had fabricated the sexual assault out of revenge for a small claims court matter and calls she believed Roberts had made to child-protection authorities. Sullivan argued the woman had never been afraid of Roberts - as proven, she said, by the exchange at the drycleaners and the evidence of her vehicle parked in his driveway late at night - and had attempted to bait him in recorded phone calls.
A man employed by Roberts to maintain his home video surveillance system had testified to reviewing video footage from one of the nights when Roberts was alleged to have been outside the woman’s home, and had seen Roberts on camera at home the whole night, Sullivan pointed out.