Experts say the trial of Canadian musician Jacob Hoggard has highlighted the need for clarity on how to navigate legal changes meant to protect the privacy of…
After deliberating for six days, jurors reached a verdict Sunday, finding the singer guilty of sexual assault causing bodily harm against an Ottawa woman, and not guilty of the same charge and sexual interference against a teenage fan.
Brown, who made submissions to the Supreme Court arguing the new rules are unconstitutional, and Dawne Way, a Toronto lawyer who argued in favour of the changes, said some of the legal issues that arose during Hoggard’s trial — such as what is considered a private record and the process through which that is determined — reflect broader confusion in how the rules are applied.Article content
The federal government said the changes aimed to “help make the criminal justice system more compassionate towards complainants in sexual assault matters.” In the Hoggard case, the admissibility of evidence related to some records — including text messages the singer exchanged with the younger complainant before the alleged sexual assault — was determined before the trial began.
Savard argued the call did not constitute a private record and thus shouldn’t require a special application. The defence lawyer added she had only just decided to use the recording in light of the complainant’s answers during cross-examination, and so could not have brought it up earlier. “It’s very, very difficult for complainants to reap the benefits of the intention of that legislation when that kind of an application is sprung mid-trial,” Way said.
Some judges have also concluded that vetting records in the possession of the defence in the middle of a trial, after a complainant has testified, would help preserve the accused’s right to a fair trial.Article content