MANDEL: Mistrial threat disrupts Michael Thompson's sex assault trial
Under cross-examination, the City Councillor was accused of wanting to 'get into the pants' of a third woman, who is not a complainant
Article content
The often delayed sexual assault trial of Toronto City Councillor Michael Thompson hit a new roadblock with his lawyer’s shocking threat to ask for a mistrial on Thursday.
The warning from Leora Shemesh came late in the day as Crown attorney Mareike Newhouse was repeatedly asking her client, as she had since the morning, about a prosecution witness in the case – a young university student who was at the Muskoka cottage where Thompson is accused of sexually assaulting two other female guests over the Canada Day weekend in 2022.
tap here to see other videos from our team.
MANDEL: Mistrial threat disrupts Michael Thompson's sex assault trial Back to video
tap here to see other videos from our team.
Newhouse was suggesting that after meeting the young woman, who can’t be named, at a Yorkville gallery on June 17, the longtime politician persistently tried to contact and impress her and very quickly invited her to his friend’s cottage under the false promise of a networking opportunity – despite her being young enough to be his granddaughter.
“I had no interest in being her boyfriend,” scoffed Thompson, 65.
The six-time Scarborough Centre councillor told his judge-alone trial that he was more of a mentor who just wanted to help the 22-year-old Black woman – just as he’s assisted many others – and heatedly called any suggestion otherwise “absolutely ridiculous.”
“I gather you’ll also tell me that it’s ridiculous when I suggest that you did, in fact, have a sexual interest in (her)?” Newhouse asked.
“Absolutely not,” Thompson laughed. “And yes, it is ridiculous.”
That’s when Shemesh rose to object.
“Mr. Thompson is not charged with anything inappropriate as it relates to (her.) She is not a complainant, she’s a witness, who’s never been asked any of these questions,” she said.
Ontario Court Justice Philip Brissette wanted to know if Newhouse’s line of questioning was just aimed at challenging Thompson’s credibility regarding his memory of the weekend.
“His credibility altogether,” the prosecutor explained. “It was this idea that he was this benevolent person trying to help her when, in fact, he was trying, I think, to get into her pants. And that’s exactly what I intend to suggest. It’s exactly what he’s denied. It’s the theme of the weekend at this point.”
Shemesh called it a “new-found theory” and a “new-found complainant” in the Crown’s case that warrants her consideration of a mistrial.
“What she ought to be barred from doing is coming to you at the end of the day and suggesting to you that he had a sexual interest in a witness who’s never been asked that,” she complained. “My concern is that I’m now having to defend my client on an uncharged allegation.”
The judge called it a “pickle” and understood why she was considering a mistrial application.
“I do think the Crown can legally ask it but it does open another can of worms,” he said.
Shemesh advised that she was seriously considering applying for a mistrial; Newhouse called the move “premature and frivolous.”
Brissette suggested both sides take a pause and consider their positions while he halted the cross-examination.
It’s not the first time the case has ground to a halt. Last fall, Shemesh asked Brissette to stay one of Thompson’s charges or remove Newhouse as a remedy for the Crown’s alleged misconduct of showing photos the witness had taken at the cottage to one of the two complainants before she began her testimony.
RECOMMENDED VIDEO
tap here to see other videos from our team.
The judge agreed the prosecutor had breached the “spirit” of his order by showing the photos as a “heads up” to the complainant but found it “does not warrant” a stay or her removal.
Since taking the stand in his own defence Tuesday, Thompson has vehemently refuted all the allegations against him. He insisted he never touched the first complainant’s breasts and buttocks after asking to apply sunscreen on her. He also denied forcing oral sex from the second complainant or that she was heavily intoxicated and told him “no,” insisting she was the aggressor and they enjoyed consensual sex.
After a trial that began last October, a court change from Bracebridge to Barrie and a patchwork of available court dates, it finally appeared as if the saga was nearing an end.
Instead, it might have to start all over again.
Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion. Please keep comments relevant and respectful. Comments may take up to an hour to appear on the site. You will receive an email if there is a reply to your comment, an update to a thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information.