The Crown appealed Judge Joëlle Roy’s controversial acquittal in a sexual assault case. The judge criticized the complainant for keeping her eyes closed. A “preconceived opinion,” according to the public prosecutor.
Posted at 1:28 p.m.
That acquittal verdict set off a cascade of events last month. In a text published in La Presse, columnist Yves Boisvert criticized the judge for perpetuating the myth of the “good victim” and questioned her competence given the numerous Court of Appeal rulings overturning her decisions.
Judge Joëlle Roy reacted very strongly to this column. On the morning of publication, the judge sat in tears in an incest trial. She called the column “a personal attack.” […] very vicious.” The next day, in the courtroom, Judge Roy read a letter to Yves Boisvert in which he said that as a “woman” she had been the victim of “violence.”
Since this unusual statement, the Quebec court judge has not been at the Montreal courthouse.
PHOTO OLIVIER JEAN, LA PRESSE ARCHIVE
Judge Joëlle Roy
The verdict in this case was against Sufyan Haji Bik, a 60-year-old therapist from Montreal. He was accused of sexually assaulting a patient in spring 2021. During the treatment, the woman said she felt an object on her breasts – a type of “cone” – but could not feel it because she kept her eyes closed.
The complainant then alleged that the osteopath quickly touched her vulva and pelvic area. She then allegedly told the man to stop by grabbing his wrist.
“When she says that she is able to grab the defendant’s wrists so that he stops massaging her in the pelvic area and to tell him that she is there for his back, she can “tap” during the episode “Also open your eyes, which she also doesn’t do,” concludes Judge Roy.
Furthermore, Judge Roy said, even if these gestures were true, they would not constitute an act with sexual connotations. “Using the oil could cause the hand to slip, and the effects are very quick,” she said.
In the notice of appeal filed with the Court of Appeal last week, the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (DPCP) sets out three grounds for appeal. First, the DPCP contends that Judge Roy analyzed the evidence in light of a “preconceived notion of the expected behavior of the parties.”
The DPCP also criticizes the judge for believing the defendant’s general denial without examining his statement in the light of the evidence. Additionally, the DPCP claims the judge erred in concluding that certain gestures, such as digital penetration, did not constitute sexual assault.
The public prosecutor’s office is therefore requesting that the acquittal verdict be overturned and a new trial be ordered.