Article content continued

The essence of the complaints against Henein – whose job in the Ghomeshi trial was to provide her client with as vigorous a defense as possible – is that she was too confrontational with the women who accused Ghomeshi of criminal sexual behaviour. Being cross-examined by a skilled defense lawyer is an intimidating prospect for any alleged victim, and no doubt an especially painful one if the charges at hand carry the added shame and embarrassment that seem to cling in particular to sexual abuse allegations.

For many university students who have followed and commented on the Ghomeshi trial – as well as Henein’s role in it – an understanding of this very basic fundamental aspect of our small-l liberal society seems to be shockingly lacking.

But cross-examining an alleged victim is a vital part of maintaining an accused’s right to be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is no less true in sexual assault cases than it is in other assault cases, and the reason is the same: The worst mistake our criminal justice system can ever make is taking away the liberty of an innocent person. A robust defence, including an ardent cross-examination (and all the discomforts that entails), is the surest safeguard against such injustice. To put it bluntly, it’s an element of due process that is an essential component of what makes Canada a free country, rather than a land where people can be jailed on mere suspicion rather than proof.

For many university students who have followed and commented on the Ghomeshi trial – as well as Henein’s role in it – an understanding of this very basic fundamental aspect of our small-l liberal society seems to be shockingly lacking.