For the defence
Did defence lawyer Marie Henein “betray” women when she shredded the credibility of Jian Ghomeshi’s three female accusers during his celebrity sex assault trial? In the eyes of some, there’s no doubt in the wake of his acquittal.
Passions ran high during the high-profile case, with its lurid tales of creepy violence and bizarre attraction. Throughout, Henein has been reviled on social media and elsewhere for betraying women’s rights, failing to stand up for her gender and abusing witnesses.
In a remarkable interview with Henein this week, CBC anchor Peter Mansbridge read several scathing Facebook postings: “Brave Marie Henein, you’ve just set women’s rights and rights of assault victims back 70 years.” “You are on the wrong side of history.” And “feels like a betrayal from a sister.”
A Twitter message also channelled former U.S. secretary of state Madeleine Albright’s famous remark: “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women.”
That’s just a taste of the abuse Henein has faced for successfully defending her client. And while one of Canada’s highest-profile criminal lawyers would never describe herself as “warm and fuzzy,” the torrent of outrage must have been as painful as it was ignorant and dangerous.
As Henein told CBC News in a forceful and thoughtful rebuttal of her critics, any trial of this sort is bound to be “devastating,” “painful” and “crushing” for the accused and accusers alike. “It’s a very, very, very hard thing to go through,” she said. But at the end of the day, Canada’s justice system with its presumption of innocence is a fair and credible one.
“Justice does not mean that you are guaranteed the result that you want,” she said. “Justice does not mean that you will be presumptively believed or that your evidence will not be tested . . . You are guaranteed an opportunity to be heard and . . . a fair trial.”
That’s not to say Canada’s approach to sexual assault cases can’t be improved. Critics cite a need for better educating key players, better preparing cases and better resourcing the system.
Even so, anyone reading Justice William Horkins’ reasons for judgment would know that Ghomeshi’s accusers were not dismissed as cranks by the police, Crown or court. They were taken seriously, Ghomeshi was charged and faced prison time.
Moreover, as the Star has noted before, the case did not become a crude inquisition into the women’s sex lives. It turned, as all cases must, on their truthfulness and credibility. That should be reassuring for future survivors of assault who press charges.
But in this case things unravelled when Henein exposed the complainants as playing fast and loose with the truth. On the stand they undercut their own credibility and the Crown’s case to such an extent that Horkins could not find Ghomeshi guilty. It wasn’t the result the complainants’ supporters hoped for.
Yet that hardly makes Marie Henein a villain. She played her role, expertly, providing a vigorous defence in an adversarial system that rightly requires the Crown to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s no small thing. Setting aside the presumption of innocence would imperil us all. Henein betrayed no one by doing her job, and doing it well.