Canadian judge faces inquiry over handling of sex assault trial

[webfact]

Canadian judge faces inquiry over handling of sex assault trial

 

CALGARY: -- A Canadian judge is facing a disciplinary hearing over controversial comments he made while presiding over a sexual assault case in 2014.

 

Justice Robin Camp, a provincial judge in Calgary, asked an alleged sexual assault victim why she could not "just keep her knees together".

 

Mr Camp acquitted the accused man, but the verdict was overturned on appeal.

 

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37293324

[ClutchClark]

So the homeless woman was at the party with the attacker ?

 

I would prefer to read the full police report of the investigation and witness statements that were available to the judge.

 

These news articles often omit important facts.

 

BTW, how can someone be re-tried for the same crime in Canada? Is this common?

[maoro2013]

It was on appeal.

[ClutchClark]

2 minutes ago, maoro2013 said:

It was on appeal.

 

I am quite sure the accused rapist did not appeal the original verdict of acquittal?

 

please explain.

Edited September 7, 2016 by ClutchClark

[stevenl]

47 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

I am quite sure the accused rapist did not appeal the original verdict of acquittal?

 

please explain.

Also the prosecutor can appeal.

[KKr]

Who needs a Judge like that ?

Sounds like the Wild-West of olden days movies.

Laws are there, amongst others, to protect the less powerful from more powerful.
Counselling, psychiatric treatment, and studying what he should have known in the first place is in my opinion a waste of effort.
For a Judge, a bias for either side is unacceptable, therefore he is not suitable for his job.

Fire him and cancel all accumulated benefits.

[KBsinter]

7 hours ago, KKr said:

Who needs a Judge like that ?

Sounds like the Wild-West of olden days movies.

Laws are there, amongst others, to protect the less powerful from more powerful.
Counselling, psychiatric treatment, and studying what he should have known in the first place is in my opinion a waste of effort.
For a Judge, a bias for either side is unacceptable, therefore he is not suitable for his job.

Fire him and cancel all accumulated benefits.

Totaliy agree. 

[tifino]

 

Where was the Jury??

[GOLDBUGGY]

8 hours ago, KKr said:

Who needs a Judge like that ?

Sounds like the Wild-West of olden days movies.

Laws are there, amongst others, to protect the less powerful from more powerful.
Counselling, psychiatric treatment, and studying what he should have known in the first place is in my opinion a waste of effort.
For a Judge, a bias for either side is unacceptable, therefore he is not suitable for his job.

Fire him and cancel all accumulated benefits.

Taking a sentence out of context is not right either. What was also said that they left out. 

 

Just using your own words here I can make it look like you said; "Laws are there to protect a Judge like that." " Counselling, psychiatric treatment, and studying what he should have known in the first place sounds like the Wild-West of olden days". "For a Judge to protect the less powerful is in my opinion a waste of effort."

 

I know you never said any of this but by using your own words I can twist it to make it look that way. But starting this out by saying; "KKr said this in his post. Hum?

[GOLDBUGGY]

Victim: "I went into the bathroom to throw up as I drank too much alcohol and was leaning over a bathroom sink washing my face when he came into the bathroom from an unlocked door" :"He then came up behind me and lifted my skirt and dropped my panties, and then asked me to spread my legs" "When I did he entered me." 

 

Judge: " Why did you not just keep your knees together?"

 

Bingo: End of Story!

 

I for one would like to know at least what was first said to get a response from Judge to say that. 

[halloween]

The judge seems to have very little knowledge of female anatomy.

[Stargeezr]

This Calgary judge deserves to lose his career. This jerk not only called this woman the accused,  through out the time she was in court, but treated her like she was the criminal and not the rapist. 

       If the perp wanted some cheap and easy sex, all he had to do was to buy a ticket and travel to somewhere in Asia, but instead he raped the woman

that this judge had no respect, or consideration for.

Throw the book at this bum.

Geezer

 

[Colabamumbai]

The crown  appealed the aqquital and won.

[maoro2013]

18 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

 

I am quite sure the accused rapist did not appeal the original verdict of acquittal?

 

please explain.

The prosecutor can appeal.

[ClutchClark]

52 minutes ago, maoro2013 said:

The prosecutor can appeal.

 

In the US, the prosecutor cannot appeal.

 

That is what had me scratching my head.

 

Thanks

[maoro2013]

7 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

In the US, the prosecutor cannot appeal.

 

That is what had me scratching my head.

 

Thanks

OK we talk from  different situations. In Australia even the sentence can be appealed by the prosecution if it is considered too lenient.

[stevenl]

22 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

In the US, the prosecutor cannot appeal.

 

That is what had me scratching my head.

 

Thanks

I would presume also/even in the US the prosecutor can appeal if there are doubts about the process?

[KKr]

11 hours ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Taking a sentence out of context is not right either. What was also said that they left out. 

 

Just using your own words here I can make it look like you said; "Laws are there to protect a Judge like that." " Counselling, psychiatric treatment, and studying what he should have known in the first place sounds like the Wild-West of olden days". "For a Judge to protect the less powerful is in my opinion a waste of effort."

 

I know you never said any of this but by using your own words I can twist it to make it look that way. But starting this out by saying; "KKr said this in his post. Hum?

Sure, glad you will feel good today 

[GOLDBUGGY]

10 hours ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

This Calgary judge deserves to lose his career. This jerk not only called this woman the accused,  through out the time she was in court, but treated her like she was the criminal and not the rapist. 

       If the perp wanted some cheap and easy sex, all he had to do was to buy a ticket and travel to somewhere in Asia, but instead he raped the woman

that this judge had no respect, or consideration for.

Throw the book at this bum.

Geezer

 

The Accused Testified in Court that he felt that this Victim wanted to have sex with him. Or at least he thought so at that time. There is a lot of supporting evidence to confirm this. One example in which the Victim has agreed to as true, was that she asked the Accused if he had a Condom just before the sex act took place. The Accused was invited by one of her friends to a party at her place and where this 19 year old runaway was staying for the night of partying, which she did not object to.

 

So this is one reason why her actions before the act of sex came into question. There is no doubt that she did not try to fight this Raper off, nor was she expected to. She was questioned because she did not make any attempt to show that she didn't want to have sex with the Accused, and perhaps why he felt this way. On the other hand there is evidence from her to suggest she did want to.  

 

But on the judgement the Judge did not acquit the Accused because he felt the Victim did not fight off her attacker and thus agreed to it. He acquitted him based on the Victims own testimony! From and earlier statement to the Police, she told them she wanted to have sex with the Accused that night. At the Trial she now started saying she did not.

 

But the Prosecution Appealed this decision after the Trial in 2014 and in November of 2015 a new trial was ordered. The Accused was refused Bail and has been in Prison since all this started in December 2011 and as of September 2016. A New Trial is scheduled for next year and was based on this Judge for making insensitive and inappropriate comments to and of the Accused.

 

Prior to this case this Judge had very little experience n Rape Cases. He was from South Africa and came to Canada in 1998, and became a Judge in 2012. It was also based on that the Accused should have taken more caution in assessing if this woman wanted sex or not, as she was under the influence of alcohol, and thus not in her right frame of mind.

 

So their you have it Boys! Cozy up to some woman and get intimate with her, and then she asks you if you have a Condom on you. But if you have sex with her then. you can be charged with Rape because she changed her mind the next day as she was drinking alcohol then. So now you have to spend 4 years in jail waiting for your Trial because some Judge may have made a mistake by questioning the Victim in an inappropriate way,at this First Trial, that you got acquitted on and were said to be innocent. 

 

I am totally against Rape! But I am also sick and tired when any woman can just point a finger and Scream Rape, and the man goes to Prison to try and prove now that he is innocence. Where a Woman's behavior prior to this offense can't even be question anymore or even by a Trial Judge, who's job should be at getting at the truth.

 

Innocent until Proven Guilty... My Foot!     

[dick dasterdly]

If you're right, then the defendant had a reasonable argument to support his case.  A bit odd then that the decision was overturned and he was subsequently found guilty.

 

But it doesn't condone the judge saying "Why couldn't you just keep your knees together"/"pain and sex sometimes go together" or calling her the accused during the trial.

 

All of which indicate that the judge was extremely biased - and needs to be sacked.

 

Even more worrying, is that this judge (If I read correctly) had been promoted - until he was held to account for these comments!

Edited September 8, 2016 by dick dasterdly

[GOLDBUGGY]

9 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

If you're right, then the defendant had a reasonable argument to support his case.  A bit odd then that the decision was overturned and he was subsequently found guilty.

 

But it doesn't condone the judge saying "Why couldn't you just keep your knees together"/"pain and sex sometimes go together" or calling her the accused during the trial.

 

All of which indicate that the judge was extremely biased - and needs to be sacked.

 

Even more worrying, is that this judge (If I read correctly) had been promoted - until he was held to account for these comments!

You bring up some very good points that can't be argued. The Defendant did have a reasonable argument to support his case and why at his first trail he was set free and not convicted. 

 

It is very important to note that the decision to overturn this first trail of the Innocent Verdict was not based on the Accused being now found Guilty, or even Innocent.  The Innocent Verdict  was overturned because the Appeal Judges did not feel that the Trial Judge conducted a fare trial. From his comments you can see why. So the actual Innocents or Guilt of the Accused will not be determined until a new trail next year. In the meantime the Accused sits in prison waiting for it. The Accuser said she was so upset after this trial that she got High for a whole week.  

 

No doubt that this Trail Judge put his foot in his mouth several times. He also said to the Accuser why she didn't just sit down on the toilet. But when you understand what he was trying to determine you may be able to understand this line of questioning. The Accused never claimed he did not have sex with her that night, but claimed she was a willing partner.

 

The Accuser admitting in court of asking him if he had a Condom on him, and telling the Police later that she wanted to have sex with him that night, adds credence to the Accused statement. Her going to an isolated location and to the bathroom with a house full of drinking people including men, but yet also leaving the bathroom door unlocked, can also be considered a bit suspicious. But the Accuser claimed she was raped and not a willing partner at all.

 

So who is telling the truth here? Well it is very difficult to know this and even for a Trail Judge. What is likely was that this Judge was trying to find out and why he asked the Accuser what was consider such inappropriate questions. He was only trying to figure out if she was a willing partner or not by determining if she offered some kind of resistance. Although obviously he went about it the wrong way, and the Judge Himself has admitted that. 

 

Perhaps the most import part of this case is when this Judge read his Verdict and let the Accused go free. He did not let him go based on the fact that the Accuser did not try to fight the Accused off, or even made no sign of resistance. So without either of these in this Judge's View, the Rape still could have taken place. 

 

He let the Accused go free as the Accuser either lied to the Police, when she said she wanted sex with him that night, or in court, when she said she didn't. If she did want sex with him then this very well could mean she was a willing partner. At any rate, there was Reasonable Doubt so the Accused was let go.  

 

I just think it is a sad day when in our Justice System a Trail Judge has his hands tied and can't try to get at the truth by asking questions. She could have simply told the Judge she didn't keep her knees together because she was afraid he said would harm her. Big Deal! If the Accused didn't threaten her, and she wasn't afraid then?????  

 

  

[ClutchClark]

On 9/8/2016 at 11:09 AM, GOLDBUGGY said:

You bring up some very good points that can't be argued. The Defendant did have a reasonable argument to support his case and why at his first trail he was set free and not convicted. 

 

It is very important to note that the decision to overturn this first trail of the Innocent Verdict was not based on the Accused being now found Guilty, or even Innocent.  The Innocent Verdict  was overturned because the Appeal Judges did not feel that the Trial Judge conducted a fare trial. From his comments you can see why. So the actual Innocents or Guilt of the Accused will not be determined until a new trail next year. In the meantime the Accused sits in prison waiting for it. The Accuser said she was so upset after this trial that she got High for a whole week.  

 

No doubt that this Trail Judge put his foot in his mouth several times. He also said to the Accuser why she didn't just sit down on the toilet. But when you understand what he was trying to determine you may be able to understand this line of questioning. The Accused never claimed he did not have sex with her that night, but claimed she was a willing partner.

 

The Accuser admitting in court of asking him if he had a Condom on him, and telling the Police later that she wanted to have sex with him that night, adds credence to the Accused statement. Her going to an isolated location and to the bathroom with a house full of drinking people including men, but yet also leaving the bathroom door unlocked, can also be considered a bit suspicious. But the Accuser claimed she was raped and not a willing partner at all.

 

So who is telling the truth here? Well it is very difficult to know this and even for a Trail Judge. What is likely was that this Judge was trying to find out and why he asked the Accuser what was consider such inappropriate questions. He was only trying to figure out if she was a willing partner or not by determining if she offered some kind of resistance. Although obviously he went about it the wrong way, and the Judge Himself has admitted that. 

 

Perhaps the most import part of this case is when this Judge read his Verdict and let the Accused go free. He did not let him go based on the fact that the Accuser did not try to fight the Accused off, or even made no sign of resistance. So without either of these in this Judge's View, the Rape still could have taken place. 

 

He let the Accused go free as the Accuser either lied to the Police, when she said she wanted sex with him that night, or in court, when she said she didn't. If she did want sex with him then this very well could mean she was a willing partner. At any rate, there was Reasonable Doubt so the Accused was let go.  

 

I just think it is a sad day when in our Justice System a Trail Judge has his hands tied and can't try to get at the truth by asking questions. She could have simply told the Judge she didn't keep her knees together because she was afraid he said would harm her. Big Deal! If the Accused didn't threaten her, and she wasn't afraid then?????  

 

  

'

 

Thank you very much for providing the context of this incident because I could not find it in news articles, which intentionally biased the entire court proceeding by only providing the couple of sound bites by the Judge...sound bites which did not make sense until the complete context of events was provided by you.

 

The accuser sounds like an unstable homeless drug addict (by her own admission) and it is very easy to see how her testimony was unconvincing. Who is the real victim here? Quite possibly the idiot male who accepted her invitation for sex.

[ClutchClark]

On 9/7/2016 at 9:00 PM, stevenl said:

I would presume also/even in the US the prosecutor can appeal if there are doubts about the process?

 

Not after the court decision is made and the accused is released...unless it was a mistrial (and it does not appear this was declared a mistrial). 

 

Its called Double Jeopardy in the US, "Prosecution of a person TWICE for the same offense".

[jimmybkk]

On 07/09/2016 at 3:55 PM, KKr said:

Who needs a Judge like that ?

Sounds like the Wild-West of olden days movies.

Laws are there, amongst others, to protect the less powerful from more powerful.
Counselling, psychiatric treatment, and studying what he should have known in the first place is in my opinion a waste of effort.
For a Judge, a bias for either side is unacceptable, therefore he is not suitable for his job.

Fire him and cancel all accumulated benefits.

 

Totally agree - if the guy demonstrates such poor judgement in making comments like these... doesn't that demonstrate that he's in totally the wrong line of work?

[stevenl]

6 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Not after the court decision is made and the accused is released...unless it was a mistrial (and it does not appear this was declared a mistrial). 

 

Its called Double Jeopardy in the US, "Prosecution of a person TWICE for the same offense".

First you contradict, then you say 'unless'. So the prosecution can appeal.

Thanks for the answer.

[ClutchClark]

11 minutes ago, stevenl said:

First you contradict, then you say 'unless'. So the prosecution can appeal.

Thanks for the answer.

 

Steve, try to stay with me.

 

A mistrial would be declared prior to a verdict of guilty or not-guilty. A mis-trial means that the court proceedings are left incomplete with no determination made as to guilty or not. 

 

Hoepfully you can understand how that is different from what has occured in this Canadian trial where a decision was made. 

Edited September 10, 2016 by ClutchClark

[stevenl]

31 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Steve, try to stay with me.

 

A mistrial would be declared prior to a verdict of guilty or not-guilty. A mis-trial means that the court proceedings are left incomplete with no determination made as to guilty or not. 

 

Hoepfully you can understand how that is different from what has occured in this Canadian trial where a decision was made. 

I understand what is different. But bear with me, you clearly are a 'no 'unless' and not a 'yes if ' person. Fits exactly.

[KKr]

Let me try to understand the condom question.
So, if a girl, that has a knife on her throat and understands that there is no way out of the situation, tries to save her keep self-esteem  by at least not allowing bare contact and risk diseases or pregnancy, in her distress trying to preserve at least some dignity, screams at the Bastard "at least put a condom you dirtbag", in Canada that means consent ??