Ghomeshi trial judge praised by lawyers for 'right decision'

Whileformer CBC Radio host Jian Ghomeshi'sacquittal hassparked protests,many within the legal community are praising thedecision, agreeing with the judgethat thecomplainants'credibilityissues raised reasonabledoubt in the case.

"Ithink the criminal justice system worked perfectly,'said Russell Silverstein, a Toronto-based criminal defence lawyer. "The trial judge did a masterful job of analyzing the evidence, identifying the weaknesses in the prosecution's case and coming to the right decision."

• 3 complainants in Ghomeshi trial talk to CBC News
• 'Tainted' testimony leads to Ghomeshi acquittal

On Thursday,Ghomeshiwasacquitted by an Ontario court judge on four counts of sexual assault and one count of choking.

In his ruling, Judge WilliamHorkinsscoldedthe three complainants for their "deceptive testimony," saying that there were serious deficiencies in their evidencethat significantlydamaged their credibility and reliability.

The trial, which began in Toronto on Feb. 1, 2016, lasted eight days.Ghomeshihadpleaded not guilty to all the charges, which were related to assaults alleged to have taken place from 2002 to 2003.

• Lucy DeCoutere 'overwhelmed' by support after trial

"I want to see justice done, but what [the complainants]need to take away from this is they come forward and tell the truth, they will be respected. And justice will be done,"Silversteinsaid.

"What they can't do is participate in a prosecution and decide for themselveswhat to admit and what not to admit, what truth to tell and what truth not to tell. I hope that that's the takeaway here."

The first woman to testify told court thatGhomeshihad pulled her hair and punched her in the head at his home after a dinner date.DeCouteresaid the formerQhost had choked andslapped her at his home. The third woman saidGhomeshihad squeezed her neck and covered her mouth while they were kissing on a park bench.

But it was later revealed in court that each woman had had contact withGhomeshifollowing the alleged assaults and thatdetails of this contact hadn't beenprovided to police or the Crown in their initial statements.

• Ruling by Judge WilliamHorkins
• Analysis | Don't take it out on the judge

In an interview withCBC'sIoanna Roumeliotis, former Ontario crown prosecutor Daniel Lernersaid the role of the Crown is to represent the public, not the complainants.

"They're there to ensure that there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and that there's a public interest in proceeding [with a case]," Lerner said.

"It's not the Crown's role to come up with the evidence. It's not the Crown's role to investigate the case," he said. "Witnesses need to come into court very open and very honest about what happened. And if surprises happen, the Crown is stuck with the evidence they have, and they have to do the best they can with the evidence they have."

• Jian Ghomeshi trial's not guilty decision triggers outrage, march to police headquarters

Dave Perry, a former detective with the Toronto Police Service who now runs his own detective agency, told CBC that in any criminal investigation, the police's role is to investigate the complaint, not the complainant.

"You don't start seizing people's hard drives and seizing and reading their emails,"Perry said. "Nobody would ever come forward. Who would want their life under that kind of a microscope?"

A question of credibility

The case, said Ottawa-based criminal defence lawyer Michael Spratt, was determined on the credibility and reliabilityof the witnesses.

"There were no smoking guns, as the judge said,there wereno corroboratingwitness,no DNAevidence, and as the judgerightlynoted, that's notrequired.But whatis required is tobe convincedbeyond a reasonabledoubt, whichis a very high standard,thatthe witnesses were telling the truth.

"Given the deficienciesintheir evidence, the judge pointed out that very highstandard obviouslywasn't met."

Spratt said the judge was clear that aninconsistency, or lackof memory, or something that may seem unusual to an outside observer like contact with theaccused, isn't necessarily enough to raise doubt, and that there can still be convictions when those pieces of evidence exist.

What was rightly called out by the judge,he said, was the lack of disclosure, the reluctance to disclose and explain the inconsistencies and illogical pieces of the evidence.

"That wasproblematic, not the inconsistenciesthemselves"

Judge considers appeal court

Some noted the strong languageHorkinsused tocriticizethe complainants' testimony, but Toronto-based criminaldefence lawyer JohnRosen said that's not necessarily unusual and can vary from case to case.

"The thingis that his comments,they're really inpart forpublic consumptionand in part for the courtof appeal," Rosen said. "He has to explain whyhe's acquittingin case the Crown wants to appeal. So he hasto be very clearin his statements."

Rosen said that in the Ghomeshi trial, the witnesses made the same mistake that many complainants in this kind ofcase make.

"They don't give a full on account of themselves, and they're not truthful when they first speak to the police, and they hold things backpurposely, and it always gets them into trouble."

"The thing about court is that it's a search for truth. Unless people are completely truthful and upfront about everything the good, the bad, the uglythey're going to run into problems."

Toronto-based criminal defence lawyer Joseph Neubergercommended the judge for a "very detailed, thorough analysis of all the evidence. It's a very well written and analyzed decision."

"There is a lot of foundation and evidence for the judge to make findings of deception and lack of credibility and reliability in this case," Neuberger told CBC'sAs It Happens.

"There is a lot of material that, for one reason or another, was not provided to the police when they were conducting their interviews and not disclosed to the Crown. [It's]extremely damaging to the reliability and credibility of these witnesses."