Earlier today, our nation watched with bated breath as the Ghomeshi verdict was read out to an open court. Not guilty on all counts. It’s left us with a lot to think about.

The most overt and dramatic reaction to the verdict was unsurprisingly embodied by the various advocates who came out in support of survivors of sexual violence. These individuals gathered inside and outside Old City Hall in Toronto to express their solidarity. They held signs and wore T-shirts, many emblazed with the hashtag #webelievesurvivors. 

They drew attention to the fact that sexual assault is not uncommon in our society, and that it is a problem that needs to be addressed. This is inarguable. 

Sexual assault is widely unreported. However, even when it is reported, the chances of conviction at trial are low. These are disturbing facts about crime, society, and our judicial system. 

If nothing else, the Ghomeshi trial has brought them to our attention by creating a public dialogue about the unique challenges of prosecuting such cases. 

The fact that Ghomeshi was not convicted should not serve to deter victims from reporting incidents to the police or coming forward with their stories. 

After all, the standard of proof in criminal proceedings is extremely high. The imposition of a criminal record can carry life-long consequences, all of which are highly stigmatizing in nature. The consequences that flow from a criminal conviction are some of the most serious that any society can impose upon a person, and can include the loss of liberty altogether.

If we are to brand someone a criminal, we must be absolutely certain—beyond any reasonable doubt—that they are one. This is the perilous point upon which our entire criminal justice system rests. 

And on this point, we must make an important distinction—a finding of not guilty does not equate to innocence. Jian Ghomeshi was acquitted of the charges against him, but that does not mean that he is innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever. His acquittal does not mean that the assaults did not take place, or that his prosecution was unwarranted. It only means that the allegations against him cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 

But what does this mean for the future of sex assault trials? In my view—not much. 

Every case that goes before the court is unique, and hinges on the strength of its own evidence. The Ghomeshi case is no exception. 

This case came down to one core issue: credibility. It served as a harsh illustration about the importance of truth telling during testimony. Time and time again, we have learned that half-truths and conveniently misplaced memories do not fare well under the thorough cross-examination of a skilled lawyer. The Ghomeshi case taught us that this is especially true in the digital age, where electronic debris can come back to haunt us. 

The complainants’ creditability collapsed after they were confronted with these digital ghosts; not because they existed, but because they had lied about their existence—under oath. For the judge, this created an insurmountable issue with respect to their believability. If they were willing to lie about one detail, what would prevent them from doing the same about another? This is what ultimately led to Ghomeshi’s acquittal. 

Whether you agree with the verdict or not, it is undeniable that this case captured the public's attention and inspired a lively debate about the way that our criminal justice system responds to allegations of sexual violence. 

I am hopeful that this will encourage more survivors of sexual abuse to come forward and share their stories. Whether they do so in the context of a criminal proceeding or not, an enhanced awareness about the lived experiences of sex-abuse survivors will deepen societies understanding of these crimes and serve to destigmatize them in the future.