Jurors in the sexual assault case against Canadian musician Jacob Hogard were told on Tuesday that his celebrity status did not place him in a position of power over the two applicants.
The jury, which began its deliberations on Tuesday afternoon, asked the court to clarify hours later what the relationship of power was in order to establish consent for sexual activity.
Jurors also asked Ontario Supreme Court Justice Gillian Roberts what fraud is when it comes to consent, and whether consent is still valid if it is based on that person’s belief in a “lie about love.”
Roberts told the jury that there was no connection between the authorities or the government, or fraud.
Hoghard, 37, pleaded not guilty to two counts of sexual assault and one sexual intercourse charge of sexually assaulting a person under 16.
Prosecutors allege that Hadley’s frontman brutally and repeatedly raped a teenage fan and a young Ottawa woman in hotel rooms in the Toronto area in isolated incidents in the fall of 2016.
They also allege that he groped the teen behind the scenes after a Hadley show in Toronto in April 2016, when she was 15.
The Crown pointed out several similarities in the stories provided by the applicants, two women who had never met or talked to each other.
Among these similarities are allegations that Hogard spat on them, slapped them and called them derogatory names such as “slut” and “whore” during meetings. Prosecutors say jurors should view similarities as indicative patterns of behavior.
Defense attorneys say the touching never happened and the sexual contact was by mutual consent. They allege that the applicants lied that they had been raped to cover up their shame after being rejected by a “rock star”.
The defense also says that any similarities between the applicants’ accounts may be due to Hoghard’s lifestyle at the time.
In his testimony last week, Hogard said he had no detailed recollections of the meetings with the applicants, but was certain that they had agreed on the basis of their verbal and non-verbal signals.
He told the court that he did not remember spitting, slapping or calling the applicants by name, but that these things could have happened because they were among his sexual preferences.
As part of their questions to the court on Tuesday night, jurors also asked if sex is considered voluntary if someone doesn’t say no, but also don’t say yes.
Referring to a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, Roberts told them that the agreement in the context of a sexual assault case concerned whether the applicant “in her mind wanted the sexual touch to take place”.
“It is the complainant’s view of touch that drives the analysis. It is entirely subjective in nature, “she said, citing the appeal decision.
Finally, she said that whether the applicant had subjectively agreed was a matter of credibility, which had to be determined by the jury on the basis of the evidence.
This Canadian Press report was first published on May 31, 2022.
Add Comment