Hey there, time traveller!

This article was published 5/3/2015 (2025 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

It was an ugly fight inside a rural Manitoba bar that included plenty of kicking, punching and hair-pulling.

But now a young woman who got the better of her foe -- and ended up yanking out a handful of her locks -- has been found not guilty of criminal wrongdoing.

The main reason? A judge ruled the woman was goaded into battle by a nasty, racist comment that was hurled at her in the moments before the fists and feet started flying.

Desiree Rockhill was acquitted of assault and assault causing bodily harm following a recent trial in Winnipeg. Provincial court Judge Cynthia Devine expressed major concerns about the alleged victim's credibility and role in the spat.

'Not only did Ms. Rockhill believe that (the victim) was consenting to fight her at that moment, the totality of the evidence in the trial supports that this was a consensual fight and not an assault' ‐ Provincial court Judge Susan Devine in her decision

"(The accused) was looking for the woman who made a derogatory, racist slur," Devine wrote in her decision.

Rockhill, who is aboriginal, had been with a group of friends inside an Altona bar on the night of Aug. 25, 2012, when trouble began. While in the washroom, Rockhill and her friends ran into the victim and her friends, who were all Caucasian.

An argument broke out when someone in Rockhill's group made a comment to someone in the victim's group about flushing the toilet. That's when someone in the victim's group responded by saying: "I know how to flush a toilet, you dirty native (expletive)."

Rockhill was incensed. She demanded to know who the "cheeky bitch" was that made the comment. At that point, the victim stepped forward and said, "That would be me."

While on the witness stand, the victim denied making the remark to Rockhill and claimed she was jumped without warning. But Devine rejected that claim and said the evidence painted a different picture.

"Whether or not she made the ugly, derogatory and racist comment in the bathroom, (the victim) came forward and boldly accepted responsibility for it, and in her words, tone and body language, challenged Ms. Rockhill to fight. In effect, she was saying, 'What are you going to do about it?' " Devine wrote in her decision.

"Not only did Ms. Rockhill believe that (the victim) was consenting to fight her at that moment, the totality of the evidence in the trial supports that this was a consensual fight and not an assault."

Devine went even further, suggesting the victim was lying on the stand.

"I have already decided I do not believe that she did not make the racist comment," she said. Devine said the victim appeared to exaggerate her story while testifying in court based on what she initially told police had occurred.

With no legal assault occurring, Devine said the only remaining question was whether Rockhill went "too far" during the consensual fight and committed serious bodily harm in the process.

Under the Criminal Code, a person can be found guilty "when during an otherwise consensual fight, a person is caused serious bodily harm and there was intent to cause serious bodily harm."

In this case, the victim claimed she was grabbed by the hair, which was "ripped violently" and resulted in her being thrown to the ground. She also described being punched and kicked while on the ground.

The only visible injury she suffered was a chunk of her hair being torn out. That resulted in a permanent bald spot as was shown to the judge in court.

Yet, Devine ruled that wasn't enough to meet the legal test.

"I do not accept that the long-term consequences of the hair-pulling were natural. I do not think anyone would have foreseen that (the victim) would still have a bald spot on her scalp and hair that does not grow the same in that spot on her head a considerable time later," Devine wrote.

"While I can accept that the amount of hair pulled from (the victim's) head was significant, and it has had both physical and psychological consequences for her, the injury constitutes bodily harm, not serious bodily harm."

www.mikeoncrime.com