BU sexual assault trial hears closing arguments

In closing arguments at a trial for a man accused of sexually assaulting a woman student at Brandon University in 2017, a Crown attorney said there are “multiple avenues” for conviction.

“From our perspective, consent was withdrawn due to the lack of consistent use of the condom and its removal, and the fact that the complainant verbally expressed her lack of consent and decided to stop,” Crown attorney Sarah Kok said in Brandon’s Court of King’s Bench on Friday.

The complainant testified Thursday that while attending the university, the accused, who she was not in a relationship with but knew since they were previously co-workers, asked her to “hang out.”

She testified that she went to his dorm room and eventually agreed to have sexual intercourse if the accused wore a condom. She said they started having sex in the “missionary” position before switching into “doggy style.”

She testified that while in this position, the accused was pushing her head down into the mattress, at which point she told him to stop because he was hurting her and she thought her glasses were going to break. She said he did not stop and started pushing harder.

Once the intercourse finished, she saw the condom on the floor, she testified.

A couple of months later, she “confronted” the accused and asked why he took the condom off, she said. He told her he “didn’t want to ruin the mood,” the woman testified.

The accused also testified and had a different version of events.

He said that while in the “doggy-style position,” he felt the rim of the condom break, so he flipped her over and started performing oral sex on her. While doing so, he said he removed the condom, grabbed a new one from his pants on the floor and replaced it before going back into the missionary position.

He testified that he never confessed to removing it during the later confrontation.

During closing arguments on Friday, defence lawyer Bob Harrison said he didn’t think there was a “ring of truth” to the complainant’s allegations.

“There’s no point during her evidence where she saw him take the condom off,” Harrison said, adding that based on his client’s testimony, changing positions only took seconds, which wouldn’t have been enough time for him to remove the condom.

He said the accused’s explanation that he replaced the condom shows that he was respecting her wishes that a condom be used and that he was being truthful.

“He could have easily said that he didn’t take the condom off. He could have said that he took the first condom off after sex and threw it on the floor … His explanation is definitely more difficult,” he said.

Harrison agreed that he could have told her that it broke.

He said he believed there is reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty and that he should be acquitted of the charge.

Kok argued that the accused was not an honest and truthful witness. She said he created an “entirely new” version of events.

“From our perspective, (the accused) appeared to struggle to explain his own version of events when he was pushed on cross examination. The mere physicality of the situation, frankly, appears highly unlikely and unbelievable,” she said. “Contrary to the defence counsel, I don’t believe that there’s a ring of truth to his version of events.”

Even if the judge were to believe the accused’s testimony, Kok pointed out that at no point did the complainant consent to him performing oral sex on her.

Kok said the complainant was “steadfast” during cross-examination and that she was clear on what she did and didn’t consent to.

“The only agreement was that sex would be with a condom on. At some point she believes the condom was removed or came off and that sex became forceful, and she told him to stop. There was no longer consent to engage in the sexual activity,” she said.

Justice Elliot Leven reserved his decision on the matter.

» sanderson@brandonsun.com