After Ghomeshi case, is more legal advice really what victims need? - Affordable Defence

1. After Ghomeshi case, is more legal advice really what victims need? http://affordabledefence.com/

2. On behalf of Edelson Clifford D'Angelo Friedman LLP posted in Criminal Defense on March 25, 2016. Earlier this month, the Ontario government launched the Independent Legal Advice for Sexual Assault Survivors Pilot Program. The program pays lawyers to provide as many as four hours of free legal advice to sex assault complainants to help them “make informed decisions about their next steps.” The government will pay these lawyers $136/hour, which, as an aside, is a higher hourly rate than the publicly funded legal aid program would pay a lawyer with nine years’ experience to defend an indigent accused person facing years in prison. But I digress. http://affordabledefence.com/

3. The irony of this recent announcement is quite pronounced, particularly when one reads the detailed and thoughtful decision of Justice William Horkins in acquitting former CBC broadcaster JianGhomeshi. When one sets aside the frenzied social media lynch mob and the intensity surrounding the trial, no objective observer was surprised by the outcome – not guilty on all charges. Many in the media and the academy, have commented on how unfair, difficult and opaque the criminal process can be for sexual assault complainants. The Independent Legal Advice project was launched in response to these concerns. http://affordabledefence.com/

4. In the Ghomeshi decision, the trial judge categorically stated that he was unable to accept the evidence of any of the three alleged victims. He found them each to be not credible and unreliable. In fact, he went so far as to remark that the complainants had betrayed their oath to testify honestly. Of course, there is no doubt that these women would have fared far better had they had access to the type of program recently launched by the Ontario government. Surely, with the guidance and advice of legal counsel, the complainants would have testified in a candid and forthright manner — and their evidence would not have been littered with contradictions, confabulations and, in some cases, outright perjury. http://affordabledefence.com/

5. Thank You http://affordabledefence.com/