Two elderly Canadian billionaires are making headlines after police agencies charged them with sexual assault and other sexual offences earlier this Spring. In late May, Montreal Police arrested the 80-year-old founder of the company Future Electronics, Robert Miller, for 21 alleged sexual offences against 10 complainants that occurred between 1994 and 2016. Given that more than 50 women are involved in a pending class-action civil suit against the billionaire for sexual misconduct, more criminal charges are possible.
In early June, Peel Regional Police arrested 91-year-old auto parts magnate Frank Stronach for sexual assault and other sexual offences against three women. Additional victims have since come forward , and Stronach now faces 13 sexual offence charges allegedly committed against 10 women between 1977 and 2023 in the Greater Toronto Area.
The alleged offenders’ wealth, reputation, and age will make them media fodder as their cases proceed through the courts. The sexual assault defence lawyers of Toronto’s Mass Tsang will undoubtedly be keeping close tabs on case progression to follow their respective criminal defence strategies. While the defence efforts are of interest because they’re supported by the best criminal defence money can buy, the respective prosecutions will be of interest, too. Other than witness testimony, what sexual assault evidence will the Crown introduce? Given the timeframe of almost all the alleged offences, absent witnesses and physical evidence, we believe prosecutors face an exceptionally high bar in proving guilt.
With this in mind, let’s examine three primary defences used to defend against sexual assault accusations:
The mistaken identity defence in sexual assault cases aims to prove that the accused was not responsible for committing the alleged assault. Because victims tend to know the offenders in most sexual assault cases, this defence is primarily raised when the victim does not know their assailant.
In mounting this defence, the defendant might introduce evidence proving that they were somewhere else during the alleged assault. They might also be able to argue and offer evidence that the victim or witnesses mistakenly identified the defendant as the assailant. In some cases, the defendant can introduce DNA or other forensic evidence that might prove that the assailant must have been someone else.
We believe that both billionaires are likely to raise this defence at least in part and are likely to claim that they’ve never met some of the complainants. Many of the alleged offences took place decades ago, and the defendants may not have any recollection of meeting a victim, especially if the alleged sexual assault was a one-time incident. Absent witnesses or other evidence, prosecutors may have difficulty proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based solely on a victim’s testimony about an event that occurred so many years ago.
Billionaire Miller may be able to craft an especially compelling mistaken identity defence because the victims reportedly thought he was an American radio executive named Bob Adams at the time of the alleged assaults. However, it is unclear whether Miller’s case will be able to proceed to trial as he is reportedly too sick and ailing to attend court hearings.
The issue of consent is a crucial element in most sexual assault cases, and a primary defence strategy in many cases is to prove that the alleged victim consented to the sexual activity that was claimed as an assault. Without other evidence, determining if the victim granted or withheld consent is incredibly challenging, and the credibility of the victim’s testimony versus the defendant’s evidence can prove to be the crux of the case. A victim’s testimony must be compelling enough to overcome whatever reasonable doubts the defence can raise about all elements relating to the alleged incident.
Of the two billionaire defendants, Miller faces the biggest obstacles in mounting this defence, as most of the victims were underage at the alleged time of the assaults. Under the law, consent for sexual activity can only be granted by those of legal age. This precludes Miller from raising the consent defence against eight of the 10 victims.
This defence relies on proving that the accused believed that the victim consented to the sexual activity, even if the belief was in error. To effectively mount this defence, the accused must show that they honestly believed the victim granted consent and that this belief was reasonable under the circumstances. To prove these two factors, the defendant must demonstrate the steps they took to seek and secure consent. Absent reasonable grounds to believe that the victim consented, or if the pursuit of consent was reckless or intentionally vague, the court will discount this evidence.
It is unclear whether this might be a viable defence for the billionaires without knowing more about their relationship (if any) with the alleged victims.
Along with these three primary sexual assault defence stratagems, the billionaire’s defence efforts will undoubtedly include any exculpatory evidence and anything else that can challenge the veracity of the Crown’s evidence and narrative of events. Crown prosecutors must prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold that the billionaires committed the alleged sexual assaults. In these cases, the defence lawyers will undoubtedly be striving to cast shade on every element of the respective prosecutors’ evidence.
You don’t have to be a billionaire to secure expert criminal defence against sexual assault charges in the Greater Toronto Area. Mass Tsang’s sexual assault defence lawyers have successfully defended 100s of GTA clients from sexual assault and other sexual offence charges. To secure a robust defence to challenge your sexual assault charges, contact the criminal defence experts at Mass Tsang.
