Special courts needed for sex assault cases

Re: “Young woman’s credibility questioned at rape trial,” Oct. 19. What took place at this rape trial is a textbook example of how Canada’s judicial system is rife with rape myth and re-victimization. From the description of the evidence, it is a medical fact the woman was assaulted and raped. Why then is it permissible for the defence to attack her credibility?

How is it that spurious lines of inquiry, transparently designed to embarrass and bully the complainant, are allowed to proceed? While it is incumbent upon the court to ascertain the circumstances that led to the alleged incident and establish the facts surrounding those involved, this should not be an invitation to engage in ad hominem attacks on the complainant or air details that are of no relevance to whether or not a rape occurred and who did it. For example, it is entirely unimportant what mood the complainant was in that evening.

Yet, sadly, many defence lawyers seem to believe that this approach is their obligation in serving their clients. Judges are apparently all too willing to entertain this state of affairs, which tells you something about the ultra-low rates of conviction in this country.

What took place at this Halifax trial is yet another example of why specialized courts are needed to hear cases of sexual violence, with specific education and training for judges and lawyers about what consent is. Patrick Vert Saanich