Judges need training in sexual assault law

Senate should pass bill to train judges in sexual assault law

You’d think by now that the law surrounding consent in sexual assault cases would be perfectly clear to all judges.

After all, this was the year Alberta Federal Court judge Robin Camp resigned after it came to light that he had asked a woman why she couldn’t just keep her “knees together” to prevent an alleged rape.

Still, the shocking stories about judges’ Jurassic views on consent keep pouring in.

Last March a Halifax judge found that a woman who was so drunk she had passed out and urinated in the back of a cab could consent to sex with the driver. That case is now under appeal.

And in May, in a case that just came to light this week, Quebec Judge Jean-Paul Braun mused: “Surely the same consent isn’t required to try to kiss someone as for touching her bottom?” Quebec Justice Minister Stephanie Vallee called the judge’s remarks unacceptable and said she intends to file a complaint.

These cases, and so many more like them, reinforce the obvious point that judges need more training on sexual assault laws.

So why then are some members of the Senate blocking a bill that makes sexual assault case training mandatory for all lawyers who wish to become federal judges? It’s wrong-headed for so many reasons.

After receiving unanimous support in May, Bill C-337, introduced by former interim Conservative leader Rona Ambrose, has languished in the Senate ever since. “It makes my blood boil, to be honest, because it’s really about creating a level of confidence so that people will come forward,” Ambrose said.

Creating a level of confidence in the judicial system is vitally important. Indeed, a 2014 survey by the Department of Justice found that lack of trust in the judicial system was the second-most common reason, next to shame, for women choosing not to come forward. About 90 per cent of sexual assaults are never reported to police.

One of the reasons cited by Senator Andre Pratte for not supporting the bill is that it requires training for would-be federal judges, when most sexual assault cases are heard by provincial judges.

But that ignores the fact that any lawyer who wants to eventually become a federal court judge would have to take the training, so many who become provincial judges would receive it.

It also underestimates the effect the bill has already had by simply shining a spotlight on the problem.

For example, in May Ontario Court Chief Justice Lise Maisonneuve mandated that new provincial judges be trained in sexual assault law. Further, she “encouraged” sitting judges to attend criminal law seminars that include sexual assault case training.

Other provinces could easily follow suit.

Bill C-337 is simply an important start down the long road to training all lawyers and judges in the issues around consent in sexual assault cases. The Senate should stop blocking this important legislation and pass it.