E.M.'s testimony was 'deliberately slippery' to advance agenda, defence argues at Hockey Canada trial

What it’s the likes of existence a margaret court chalk out artist at a high-profile trial

E.M.’s credibility challenged in Hockey Canada sex assault trial closing arguments

Testimony wraps up at world junior hockey sexual assault trial

Megan Savard says she has about 10 more minutes of closing arguments.

She says she wants to answer a question that Justice Maria Carroccia asked McLeod’s lawyer, David Humphrey, yesterday, about whether or not it is normal for a person to come to court with a goal or agenda in mind.

“Generally, not this much of an agenda,” Savard says. €œThere’s a difference between hoping for an outcome but nonetheless trying to be careful, objective and a non-advocate, so to speak, versus actively trying to advance an agenda, and it is the latter that we are dealing with here, and that is a credibility problem.”

The way E.M. Testified obscures what she did, how she felt, what others did, and how and why she changed her account, Savard tells Carroccia.

“The goal is to obscure because this witness knows that the truth will not serve her agenda, which is to see her not in consent,” Savard says.

Savard calls E.M. €œdeliberately slippery” in how she gave her testimony, and gives some examples from E.M.’s testimony.

Good morning. I’m a reporter based in London, Ont., and I’ve been covering this trial since the outset, starting in late April.

Yesterday, we heard from David Humphrey, lawyer for Michael McLeod (the only one of the five men who faces two charges – one of sexual assault, the other for being a party to the offence, for allegedly inviting his teammates into his hotel room for sex acts with E.M. Without her knowledge or consent. McLeod has pleaded not guilty to both counts).

We also heard yesterday from Megan Savard, lawyer for Carter Hart, the only one of the five who testified at the trial. She has a bit more to say today.

Three more legal teams have to deliver their closing arguments. They represent Alex Formenton, Dillon Dubé and Cal Foote.

(I always list the men in the same order each is listed on the indictment, and in the order in which each man sits in the courtroom, from front to back. That’s also the order the lawyers deliver their closing and opening statements).

After the defence teams are done, the Crown will deliver closing arguments.

This is the eighth and final week set aside for the trial. After all the closings are over, the case will be with the judge, who we expect will set a date to deliver her verdict and reasons for her decision.

The five men on trial have all pleaded not guilty to one count each of sexual assault; Michael McLeod is the only one facing a second charge, and has pleaded not guilty to being a party to the offence.

We’ve had some queries about the potential penalties for any convictions. (Whether anyone is found guilty is up to Justice Maria Carroccia alone).

We put the question of possible sentences to a couple of legal experts who aren’t involved in this trial.

They say sentencing is a highly individualized process.

The sentences could range, depending on the circumstances of the offence and the offender.

For sexual assault, everything is available, from an absolute discharge all the way up to federal prison time, says Sarah Leamon, a criminal defence lawyer watching the trial from Vancouver.

For sexual assaults involving penetration, the typical starting point is two years less a day in jail, she adds.

In McLeod’s case, he could only be found guilty of the second charge of being a party to the offence if someone else is found guilty of sexual assault ‒ and then, the sentence (for being convicted of being a party to the offence) could start at six to 12 months in prison, says Nick Cake, a former Crown who’s now a criminal defence lawyer in London.

In the world juniors case case, if anyone is convicted of sexual assault, Cake says, the Crown will likely seek a penitentary sentence of two years or more, while a conviction involving oral sex would be at least two years.

There is no minimum sentence for sexual assault convictions in this case because E.M. Was not a minor at the time of the alleged offence. The maximum penalty would be 14 years in prison.

All the offences (which fall under the Criminal Code) qualify for anything from a discharge to custody, including a conditional sentence order (house arrest), Cake says.

I’m a producer based in Toronto and I’ll be curating our live page today.

Our team of reporters is back at the London courthouse to cover the latest developments from the trial.

To get caught up on yesterday’s proceedings, click here. You can also find all of our online trial coverage here any time.

We’re expecting court to get underway around 10 a.m. ET.

---

---