Delays hinder completion of sexual assault trial in Kelowna

Warning: This story contains sexual violence which may be offensive to some readers.

Another delay in sentencing brought the sexual assault victim to tears in the Supreme Court in Kelowna, British Columbia, on May 27.

The sentencing, which would have marked the end of a four-year legal battle for the assault survivor, was delayed because the victim impact statement she wrote was too long.

“I am still in shock at how horrific this was,” a person who was in court and witnessed the proceedings said in a statement to Black Press Media. The person asked to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal.

The survivor is being referred to as Jane Doe because her name cannot be released due to a court-ordered publication ban. Doe has previously said she feels like she has been living in a nightmare for four years since the attack on Christmas Eve 2020.

Two years after the attack, on November 5, 2022, Joshua Hawco was unanimously found guilty of sexual assault by a twelve-member jury.

READ MORE: Jury finds Kelowna man guilty of sexual assault

Before the trial began, Hawco had the option of choosing a trial by jury and judge or by judge alone, as is the case for all persons accused of a serious crime. Hawco chose a trial by judge and jury.

During the trial, Doe testified that she was sleeping in her bed when she was awakened by Hawco, who sexually assaulted her early in the morning. He was a stranger to her and was invited to the apartment by her roommate for a first date. After her roommate fell asleep, Hawco entered Doe’s room while she was sleeping and assaulted her in her bed.

Months after the jury’s verdict, but before the verdict was announced, Hawco filed a motion for a mistrial “following a conviction of sexual assault,” which caused delays in the sentencing.

READ MORE: Kelowna woman speaks out for sexual assault victims, hopes for justice

Hawco claims his Charter rights were violated because part of Doe’s testimony was redacted in the statements he received. After the guilty verdict, he requested and was granted access to the redacted portions of the testimony.

Publicly available court documents do not indicate exactly what information was redacted, but Hawco says it would have been useful for him to know this information before the trial and that it would have helped him in his defense.

Crown argued that the burden of proof for the discovery request was on the defence, saying that Hawco’s lawyer had had time and opportunity to request unredacted copies of the statements before the trial began.

On March 28, 2024, Judge Weatherill denied Hawco’s application, stating: “Having considered the redacted portions, while potentially relevant to the defense, on balance I am not satisfied that they have risen to a level so substantial as to warrant an order for dismissal,” and dismissed the file.

On the day of sentencing, Doe had prepared to read her victim impact statement to the court.

Before the impact assessment was read, Hawco’s lawyer argued that the assessment did not meet the standards set out in the Criminal Code of Canada and therefore should not be read in court.

Judge Weatherill acknowledged this and decided that the statement should be changed and a new date for sentencing should be set.

The court will reconvene on June 3 to set a date for sentencing.