Article content continued

Henein reviewed the relevant law for the judge, but in the process, provided a stinging feminist rebuttal to the naysayers who argue that victims shouldn’t be subjected to the rigorous trial process, and a rather lovely paean to the truth-seeking function of the criminal trial.

First, she pointed out the obvious: In addition to four counts of sexual assault upon the three women, Ghomeshi is also charged with choking DeCoutere, but the charge means he must have choked her to overcome her resistance to his committing another offence, and that he choked her to render her “insensible, unconscious or incapable of resistance,” in the language of the Criminal Code.

Those elements, even by DeCoutere’s testimony, aren’t met, she said.

What was extraordinary about this case, Henein said, was that “all three complainants withheld information from the police and from the Crown and most importantly, from the court in testimony.”

Only at the 11th hour, on the eve of testifying, was the truth told — “only when there was a concern they’d be confronted with objective evidence …

“The truth was not going to be told at trial,” Henein said. “Were it not discoverable independently, we were not going to hear the truth.”

There was the relevance of the complainants’ conduct, she said, but as important, the relevance of the lies they told under oath.

“We know,” she said, “that in certain circumstances, women will continue to interact with people who abuse them. But that’s not what’s at play in this case.”