Jurors for the sexual assault trial of Canadian musician Jacob Hoggard were told Tuesday that his celebrity status did not put him in a position of power over the two complainants.
The jury, which began its deliberations on Tuesday afternoon, asked the court for clarity hours later on what constitutes a relationship of authority in order to establish consent to sexual activity.
Jurors also asked Ontario Superior Court Judge Gillian Roberts what constitutes fraud when it comes to consent and whether consent remains valid if it is based on that person’s belief in “a lie about ‘love’.
Roberts told jurors that there is no power or authority relationship in the case, nor any fraud.
Hoggard, 37, pleaded not guilty to two counts of sexual assault causing bodily harm and one of sexual interference, a charge related to sexual intercourse of a person under the age of 16.
Prosecutors allege that Hedley’s leader violently and repeatedly raped a teenage fan and a young Ottawa woman in hotel rooms in the Toronto area in separate incidents in the fall of 2016.
They also allege that she touched the teenager behind the scenes after a show by Hedley in Toronto in April 2016, when she was 15 years old.
The Crown has highlighted several similarities in the accounts provided by the complainants, two women who have never met or spoken to each other.
Among these similarities are allegations that Hoggard spat at them, slapped them, and called them derogatory names like “whore” and “whore” during the meetings. Prosecutors say jurors should view similarities as indications of a pattern of behavior.
Defense attorneys allege that the palpitations never happened and that the sexual encounters were consensual. They allege that the complainants lied about being raped to cover up their shame after being rejected by a “rock star”.
The defense also says that any similarities between the complainants’ accounts can be attributed to Hoggard’s lifestyle at the time.
In his testimony last week, Hoggard said he had no detailed recollection of the meetings with the complainants, but that he was sure they consented based on his verbal and nonverbal cues.
He told the court that he did not remember spitting, buffeting or calling the complainants, but that these things could have happened as they were among his sexual preferences.
As part of their questions in court this Tuesday evening, jurors also asked if sex is considered consensual if someone doesn’t say no but doesn’t say yes either.
Citing a decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal, Roberts told them that consent in the context of a sexual assault case is about whether the complainant “in his mind wanted sexual contact to occur.” .
“It is the complainant’s perspective on touch that drives the analysis exclusively. It is entirely subjective,” he said, citing the appeal’s decision.
In the end, he said, whether the complainant consented subjectively is a matter of credibility to be determined by the jury from the evidence.
This report from The Canadian Press was first published on May 31, 2022.