Reminder: Beyond A Reasonable Doubt is a Pillar of our Justice System.

• Author: Izadi, Melody

In the post-Ghomeshi trial hoopla, many seem to question the integrity of Canada's criminal justice system. Hashtags, slogans, movements and even possibly legislation have been the ripple effects of an ever increasing angry public after Jian Ghomeshi was acquitted of his charges. Much to some of the public's dismay, yet another acquittal has been handed down from Canadian courts. This time, three officers--Joshua Cabero, Leslie Nyznik and Sameer Kara--were acquitted on August 9, 2017 after a lengthy trial in which these officers were accused of sexually assaulting a female parking enforcement officer in a hotel room.

Perhaps not so coincidentally, a female judge--Her Honour, Justice Anne Molloy--was scheduled to preside over this trial. In her written decision released on August 9, 2017, Justice Molloy gave the public a much needed reminder that the Crown's burden of proof is a pillar of our justice system that cannot be lowered, despite how unfortunate or upsetting the allegations may be.

It simply means that the Crown failed to meet their burden of proof. The slogan and hashtag "believe the victim" has become an increasingly popular statement of protest against the justice system because there is an ever increasing popular belief that the justice system gives no justice to complainants in sexual assault trials. However, Justice Molloy aptly addressed this phenomenon head on in her written reasons:

"To approach a trial with the assumption that the complainant is telling the truth is the equivalent of imposing a presumption of guilt on the person accused of sexual assault and then placing a burden on him to prove his innocence. That is antithetical to the fundamental principles of justice enshrined in our Constitution and the values underlying our free and democratic society." Put simply, the complainant was inconsistent in her testimony in important ways. Most notably, she was inconsistent with regards to how intoxicated she remembered to be during the incident. She testified that she experienced blackouts, was unable to move and was inebriated. However, a toxicologist testified that her blood alcohol content at the time, consistent with what she testified to having consumed, would make it almost impossible for her to experience such symptoms. In addition, the toxicologist testified that if she were subject to any common "date rape drug", the symptoms would have been apparent within 15 minutes to 30 minutes of ingestion, and disappeared...