Hoggard sexual assault trial: Defense says woman lied, Crown says she was ‘unshakable’ Achi-News

Defense lawyers for Canadian musician Jacob Hoggard attacked his accuser’s credibility on Thursday as they made their final submissions to jurors in the singer’s sexual assault trial, suggesting the woman had lied about the encounter to cover up her infidelity and change her account details over time.

Meanwhile, prosecutors argued that the woman remains “unmoved” on the main elements of what she claims happened in Hoggard’s hotel room around eight years ago, and that she had no reason to say lie about it.

Hoggard, the Crown argued, had “significant gaps” in his memory of that night.

The closing arguments ended almost two weeks of trial which saw former Hedley and the complainant paint very different pictures of their encounter in June 2016.

The Crown and defense agree a sexual encounter took place in Hoggard’s hotel room after a concert and bonfire after party in Kirkland Lake, Ont., but prosecutors are trying to prove it was not consensual.

The complainant, who was 19 years old at the time, testified that Hoggard raped her, choked her, hit her and urinated on her, and called her names like “dirty little bitch.” She recalled being intimidated by Hoggard during the encounter, and said she repeatedly tried to get away from him and told him to stop.

The woman, whose identity is protected under a standard publication ban, was the only Crown witness.

Hoggard said in his evidence that they flirted all night, then had a consensual one night stand.

He denied that the woman struggled, that he hit or choked her, that he pinned her down, or that he ever said she was uncomfortable. He also denied calling her names, and said she agreed to urinate on him during consensual oral sex.

Defense attorney Megan Savard suggested Thursday that the plaintiff’s account of what happened that night was unreliable and “riddled with inconsistencies,” and that the woman “had a motive to lie from the beginning.”

The plaintiff made a “foolish, spontaneous decision” to have a one-night stand with a celebrity but could not tell those around her without losing their support and jeopardizing her then two-year relationship, the defense lawyer said.

It’s very possible that the complainant “suffered embarrassment or heartache,” Savard said. “Perhaps she felt silly after realizing that she was not, in fact, special to Mr Hoggard the way she described her, when she realized that she had cheated on her boyfriend for nothing.”

Over the years, “the pressure to take private lies in public becomes too much,” and the woman filed a report with the police, the lawyer suggested.

Savard also argued that the plaintiff testified confidently about details that were contradicted by other evidence, such as transportation to the bonfire and the clothes Hoggard wore at the after-party.

In his address to the jury, prosecutor Peter Keen argued that the suggestion the plaintiff made her allegations to preserve her relationship and reputation “makes no sense.”

He noted that Hoggard was charged after the woman gave a statement to police in 2022, at least a year after she and her boyfriend broke up. There is no evidence that any of her relatives know that the incident happened, apart from the cousin who came with her to the concert, she said.

There is also no evidence that the woman faced any pressure to present the allegations, he said.

Keen acknowledged that there were “multiple inconsistencies on peripheral details” in the plaintiff’s account, but “not on the core details of the sexual assault,” including attempted anal penetration and urination.

Hoggard’s testimony also contained inaccuracies or inconsistencies on details contradicted by other witnesses, such as the route he and the complainant took to the hotel room or whether the band stopped by a bar before going to the bonfire, Keen said.

More importantly, the prosecutor said, Hoggard could not remember key parts of the encounter despite testifying that the night was memorable because of the bonfire and the specific sexual acts he performed with the complainant.

“In terms of the core details, Mr. Hoggard has significant gaps in his memory, and there were significant parts of his version of events that do not match his evidence as a whole,” he said.

Keen told the jurors that they do not need to believe every aspect of the plaintiff’s story beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict Hoggard – only that one of the sexual acts that occurred was consensual and that Hoggard was aware of it.

Jurors also do not need to agree on which act was not consensual, he said.

The defense lawyer told the jury that although her client had admitted to some behavior they might find “unusual or objectionable,” including having casual sex with a much younger woman, as well as sexual interests they might have ” odd or scandalous,” they cannot convict him on those grounds.

“In Canada, we don’t convict people because we don’t like their sexual behaviour. We do not use the criminal law to police people’s sexual preferences or to protect against sexual disappointment,” he said.

The judge is expected to begin delivering his final instructions to the jury on Friday.

This report was first published by The Canadian Press on October 3, 2024.