The Jian Ghomeshi saga

[Josephus]

I did say "lawyers dissect" didn't I?

[viper37]

He's been arrested, charged with 4 counts of sexual assault.

[Malthus]

He's been arrested, charged with 4 counts of sexual assault.

The appropriate outcome.

[crazy canuck]

So lets review:

1) The Star investigates allegations made against Ghomeshi

2) Ghomeshi vehemently denies the allegations and because the complainants wish to remain anonymous the Star decides not to publish

3) Ghomeshi reads something on social media indicating that the Star is going to publish something big.  Thinking (wrongly) the story is about him he goes nuclear, launches a law suit that has no merit and writes a facebook post saying that his accusers are lying.

4) The claim his accuser's are lying causes the Star to come to the conclusion they are now justified in going with their story.

5) All of this results in other women coming forward and a police investigation is started.

6) He will now make a first appearance in Court.

It reads like a Greek Tragedy warning against the consequences of hubris.

[Malthus]

So lets review:

1) The Star investigates allegations made against Ghomeshi

2) Ghomeshi vehemently denies the allegations and because the complainants wish to remain anonymous the Star decides not to publish

3) Ghomeshi reads something on social media indicating that the Star is going to publish something big.  Thinking (wrongly) the story is about him he goes nuclear, launches a law suit that has no merit and writes a facebook post saying that his accusers are lying.

4) The claim his accuser's are lying causes the Star to come to the conclusion they are now justified in going with their story.

5) All of this results in other women coming forward and a police investigation is started.

6) He will now make a first appearance in Court.

It reads like a Greek Tragedy warning against the consequences of hubris.

Heh true!

[viper37]

He's been arrested, charged with 4 counts of sexual assault.

The appropriate outcome.

Not much details for now:
from CBC
One count of "overcome resistance - choking".
I was unaware we had such a thing in our criminal code.

[Barrister]

He's been arrested, charged with 4 counts of sexual assault.

The appropriate outcome.

Not much details for now:
from CBC
One count of "overcome resistance - choking".
I was unaware we had such a thing in our criminal code.

We do.  Because the charge is "overcoming resistance to the commission of an offence", it means you're choking someone while committing some other offence.  I find that a s. 246 often doesn't add much, since you've already got a, say, sexual assault charge to deal with.

[The Minsky Moment]

Interesting - doing some research there is some very brief latitude about using a prior in-court statement to test for credibility, but not anything that might "incriminate" them:
. . .
There is, of course, also room to prosecute for perjury if you've made prior inconsistent statements under oath, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.

So a good deal less leeway than you would have in the States, but why take that chance?  It's not like the civil claim is worth a damn other than for vanity.

[Siege]

This thread is worthless without pictures.

[Jacob]

This thread is worthless without pictures.

[Barrister]

This thread is worthless without pictures.

Here ya go:

[Siege]

I meant the chicks, damit.

[Barrister]

I meant the chicks, damit.

umm, okay.

[crazy canuck]

Interesting - doing some research there is some very brief latitude about using a prior in-court statement to test for credibility, but not anything that might "incriminate" them:
. . .
There is, of course, also room to prosecute for perjury if you've made prior inconsistent statements under oath, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.

So a good deal less leeway than you would have in the States, but why take that chance?  It's not like the civil claim is worth a damn other than for vanity.

It is not as limited as BB thinks.  A couple of years ago a person was convicted because the trial judge found as a fact that the Defendant's alibi was directly contradicted by materials the accused had provided to me (as opposing counsel) in another proceeding.  BB if you want I can try to dig up the cite for you and PM it.

That legal issue aside, your point is well made. It was very unwise for Ghomeshi to have started his law suit.  If he had just dealt with his termination through the usual union grievance procedure (which would have remained confidential) he would not be in this mess today. 

edit:  and just to clarify BB, Ghomeshi has already admited that violent sexual acts did occur.  His only defence is consent.

[Siege]

Eff you all.