EXCERPTS FROM THE RULING
Reporter Alyshah Hasham runs down highlights from Judge William Horkins’s decision in Ghomeshi case
On credibility of complainant 1, L.R.
“L.R.’s evidence in-chief seemed rational and balanced. Under crossexamination, the value of her evidence suffered irreparable damage. Defence counsel’s questioning revealed inconsistencies, and incongruous and deceptive conduct. L.R. has been exposed as a witness willing to withhold relevant information from the police, from the Crown and from the Court. It is clear that she deliberately breached her oath to tell the truth. Her value as a reliable witness is diminished accordingly.
On credibility of complainant 2, Lucy DeCoutere:
“Ms. DeCoutere attempted to explain this correspondence (with Ghomeshi) as an effort at “flattening the negative” or normalizing a relationship. I acknowledge that the Court must guard against assuming that seemingly odd reactive behaviour of a complainant necessarily indicates fabrication. However, this is an illustration of the witness’s actual behaviour, evidenced by her own written expressions. It is behaviour that is out of harmony with her evidence in-chief and her multiple pretrial statements to the media and to the police. In the framework of a credibility analysis in a criminal trial, Ms. DeCoutere’s attempt to hide this information evidences a manipulative course of conduct. This raises additional and mounting concerns regarding her reliability as a witness.”
On credibility of complainant 3, S.D.:
“S.D.’s decision to suppress this information (about sexual contact with Ghomeshi following the alleged sexual assault) until the last minute, prior to trial, greatly undermines the Court’s confidence in her evidence. In assessing the credibility of a witness, the active suppression of the truth will be as damaging to their reliability as a direct lie under oath.” (Referring to her explanation for disclosing the sexual contact): “I accept Ms. Henein’s characterization of this behaviour. S.D. was clearly “playing chicken” with the justice system. She was prepared to tell half the truth for as long as she thought she might get away with it. Clearly, S.D. was following the proceedings more closely than she cared to admit and she knew that she was about to run head first into the whole truth.”
On why reasonable doubt was raised:
“The success of this prosecution depended entirely on the Court being able to accept each complainant as a sincere, honest and accurate witness. Each complainant was revealed at trial to be lacking in these important attributes. The evidence of each complainant suffered not just from inconsistencies and questionable behaviour, but was tainted by outright deception. “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. “My conclusion that the evidence in this case raises a reasonable doubt.”