A sexual assault trial narrowly avoided dismissal after Justice Ann Marie Smith ruled that social media posts by community activist Mary John, while they were “atrocious” did not prevent the possibility of a fair trial.
Justice Smith delivered her ruling on a preliminary objection raised by defence counsel Wendel Alexander last week.
Alexander had argued that Facebook posts and private messages by John, along with a news article published by Observer, could prejudice the jury against his client, who faces indecent assault charges stemming from an incident in February 2022.
The prosecution alleges that the defendant, a local businessman, offered the complainant a ride during rainfall before making unwanted advances and inappropriately touching her.
The defence presented several pieces of evidence of John’s social media activities. These included comments under the said article requesting the complainant to contact her, criticism of the investigating officer for allegedly not doing his job, and comments referring to, but not naming, the accused as a paedophile. Additionally, WhatsApp messages sent to the Indian High Commissioner suggested the accused was being protected, with one message directly naming the defendant and requesting to speak with the commissioner.
The Observer newspaper had also published an article detailing the incident but did not reveal the identity of any parties involved. The defence argued that this coverage, combined with John’s social media activities, could influence potential jurors.
The Crown countered that the publicity did not rise to a level that would prevent a fair trial.
While acknowledging that social media publicity could potentially compromise a defendant’s right to a fair trial, Justice Smith agreed with the prosecution’s position. She stated that “while the actions of Mary John are indeed atrocious and completely out of line,” proper jury directions would be sufficient to mitigate any potential prejudice.
Had the court sided with the defence, the proceedings could have been stayed or the indictment quashed. Instead, following Justice Smith’s ruling, the trial proceeded with the complainant’s testimony.
During her evidence, the complainant stated that the businessman touched her several times despite being told to stop. She testified that while he eventually ceased the touching, he then proceeded to pull over and masturbate with her in his car.
The complainant appeared deeply affected by recounting the ordeal, becoming visibly shaken and beginning to hyperventilate during cross examination.
The trial is still ongoing.
