Commonwealth_ The closing arguments in the rape case against five former members of Canada‘s 2018 World Junior hockey team began Monday, with one defense lawyer arguing the case was founded on a flawed, untrustworthy narrative. David Humphrey, representing Michael McLeod‘s defence, told the Ontario Superior Court that complainant E.M. by publication ban constructed a skewed version of events following a night out with players in London, Ontario. According to the defence, E.M. fabricated the story because of remorse and fear for what could happen as a consequence of her behaviours.
McLeod, along with Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dube, and Callan Foote, appeared in court to plead not guilty to charges of sexual assault. McLeod also faces an additional count of being a party to the offence. The allegations brought against him are based on what the Crown describes as non-consensual group sex involving the complainant in McLeod’s hotel room during the early hours of June 19, 2018.
The incident happened during the time players were in London celebrating their gold medal victory in the World Junior Championship. The complainant had met players at a downtown tavern the night before and subsequently had gone with McLeod to his hotel room, where the two had sex. She subsequently alleged that having gone to the washroom, she returned to find several men in the room who had been invited by McLeod in a group text.
E.M. maintained throughout the trial that she was intoxicated and not in her senses, asserting that she was coerced to remain in the room and treated with ill manners and exploitation. Defense lawyers challenged this account, suggesting that E.M. was not as intoxicated as claimed and had consented willingly to the activities of the group. Defense attorneys accused her of being driven by guilt and a desire to shift blame.
A judge alone is conducting the trial, which began in late April, after dismissing two juries. The defense concluded its case last week, paving the way for submissions. Defense barristers representing the accused planned their arguments to avoid repeating one another, estimating that each of them would last two to three hours. Crown prosecutors will deliver a day’s worth of closing submissions.
Only Carter Hart testifies in his defense during the trial. The defense teams for the remaining alleged players will rely on cross-examinations, evidence that was already submitted in court, and police interviews presented earlier.
“Humingly, however, Humphrey says that it is the complainant’s actions after their encounter that suggest a marked change in how she was perceiving things. He argued that after returning home and being found crying by her mother, she gave an early, sanitized version of events a “white lie” as the defense called it, that then prompted a police investigation. That version, according to the defense, was tinged more with feelings of personal guilt at having drunk and cheated on her boyfriend than with any criminal wrongdoing.
E.M. She testified for almost two weeks and was subjected to extensive cross-examination. She consistently denied the defense’s assertion that she had initiated or encouraged sex with the group and insisted that she was taken advantage of while clearly intoxicated. The case has also garnered much public and media attention, again due to the status of the accused. There were a number of fine young Canadian hockey stars at the time that the crime is said to have occurred, and this case will likely impact all of them individually, as well as upon the general debate regarding consent and behavior in sporting culture.
