Why Did The Former World Junior Hockey Players Get Acquitted?

We’ve all seen it in the news. Five former World Junior Hockey players from 2018 were charged and eventually went to trial, and all five were acquitted. The five were all charged with sexual assault, and one was charged with a party yo defense. The justice in the case, Justice Maria Carrocia, a very experienced and capable trial judge, ultimately found that the complainant was not credible and reliable, and applied the W.D. principles and outlined. This has sparked a national debate of hockey culture, standards of proof in a criminal trial, and how complainants are viewed, and whether this is going to dissuade other victims from going to court in the future. 

And there’s people on all sides of this. I’m not going to comment on what I think of the trial, I didn’t see the trial. I only read was in the news, so I’m not in a position to comment on the trial, because you can’t always believe what you read in the news, but I certainly did follow the trial. We all did, and it’s a very vexing, troubling questions that it poses, and it’s still sparking various debates online. But ultimately, what happened here? Well, there was a full trial, and the complainant obviously testified and was cross examined by five different defense counsel over multiple days. It was a very long, challenging trial. You’ll recall that there was originally a mistrial. Originally was a jury. Ultimately it was decided that it will proceed by Judge alone. 

Justice Carrocia ultimately found that the complainant, after listening to all the evidence, was not credible or reliable. She found that there were contradictions in her recollection evolving over time. The evidence did not support extreme intoxication, some of the video evidence and whatnot, she found ultimately applying the principle of W.D. which means this, if you believe the evidence of the defense, the accused, you must acquit. If you have a reasonable doubt based on the evidence of the accused, you must acquit. Based on all the evidence, even if you disbelieve the evidence of the defense, is there any reasonable doubt? 

And ultimately, she found that there was a lack of credibility, and whatever side you fall on, this sparked a storm of outrage, we’ve got crazy hockey culture. Obviously, this is morally repugnant to most citizens. You engaging in whether it was consensual or not, and it speaks to the hockey culture in Canada, which needs to change, and I hope Hockey Canada is changing that. That there was a payout, a civil lawsuit which came to light, as you recall, it was all done in secret, stupidly, and they fired a bunch of people on it and put new people on the board. But then when the police reinvestigated, there was pressure to charge, and ultimately it went to trial. It was a very full trial. 

I think Justice Carrocia expressed a lot of courage to make the finding she did mean. In these situations, when I’ve done major trials over the years, I’ve done jury’s and judge alone depends on the case. What you elect, of course. A lot of judges, will go a halfway house approach, they’ll say, “look at I find the complaint credible, but I have a reasonable doubt”, that’s a more politically palatable, if I might put it that way, it easier to avoid criticism. 

But you know, Justice Carrocia, she made her finding. She’s a very respected former criminal lawyer, very respected judge, and I actually read a judgment, a very well written judgment, in this case, and it sparked this firestorm. So now we’re having debate in Canada about hockey culture, standards of proof, and ultimately, in this particular case, the burden of proof was not met, whether you agree with it or not. It’s another story. I’ll leave that for another day. I’m not going to comment one way or the other on that. 

But certainly, hockey culture needs to change. Certainly morally, this is repugnant behavior to most right-minded thinking. I think the kids, I shouldn’t say kids, the teenagers at the time in 2018 the ones that made the right decision were the ones who left the room. Come in the room and go, “I’m getting the heck out of here. This is crazy.” I suppose if they were more mature, they might have broken up the situation. In retrospect, that would have been a great decision to make. 

But here we are today, with this fire storm continuing. Perhaps this is dissuading some victims from coming forward, because they’re going to be facing these flanks of tremendous criminal lawyers who are here to cross examine you on their credibility. And it’s not a pleasant experience being a victim, whether you’re telling the truth, whether you’re lying, or somewhere in between, but for true victims, and let’s face it, most crime, most allegations of sexual assault, are true, it’s whether the crown could meet the standard of proof, and that’s proof beyond reasonable doubt. 

And ultimately, Justice Carrocia, in this particular case, assessed the evidence, and she had the courage to state how she felt about the case based on legal principles that it lacked credibility. She just didn’t say there’s a little bit of reasonable doubt. She went beyond that, and I find a lot of judges aren’t prepared to do that, but she was, and some people think she should be commended for that, but other people think this is a crazy decision, that there should have been a conviction. So, it’s going to spark our comments. I’m sure this YouTube video will spark comments too. People are on both sides. I won’t say what side I’m on. I’m just here presenting what was said in the case. 

And you know, now, of course, these NHL players, former NHL players, I think four of them, some were playing in Europe, but it’s really debatable whether their NHL careers. 

You know, the only people who truly know what happened in that room, frankly, are the players, the complainant and God. On earth here, we can only apply standards, and the standard, apparently wasn’t met, according to Justice Carrocia, and now we have the fallout across Canada. But one thing that needs to change for sure, and we need to work on, is hockey culture, and I’m sure the junior tournaments now, with these kids that are playing, late teens, kids, I’m sure they’re much more chaperoned and followed, and hopefully they’re having discussions with them. 

And this is, this is a firestorm and national debate that’s going to continue, and Hockey Canada needs to change, and I think they’re hopefully making steps to do that. So, there you have it. There’s the fallout from the World Junior allegations from 2018 and there’s an acquittal, and now we have a national debate and firestorm, including about the hockey culture, which definitely needs to change.