03/25/2016 07:47 EDT | Updated 03/26/2017 05:12 EDT

Ghomeshi Trial Judge Praised By Lawyers For 'Right Decision'

In his ruling, Judge William Horkins scolded the three complainants for their "deceptive testimony."

While former CBC Radio host Jian Ghomeshi's acquittal has sparked protests, many within the legal community are praising the decision, agreeing with the judge that the complainants' credibility issues raised reasonable doubt in the case.

"I think the criminal justice system worked perfectly,' said Russell Silverstein, a Toronto-based criminal defence lawyer. "The trial judge did a masterful job of analyzing the evidence, identifying the weaknesses in the prosecution's case and coming to the right decision."

On Thursday, Ghomeshi was acquitted on four counts of sexual assault and one count of choking by an Ontario court judge

In his ruling, Judge William Horkins scolded the three complainants for their "deceptive testimony," saying that there were serious deficiencies in their evidence that significantly damaged their credibility and reliability.

"The thing about court is that it's a search for truth."

The trial, which began in Toronto on Feb. 1, 2016, lasted eight days. Ghomeshi had pleaded not guilty to all the charges, which were related to assaults alleged to have taken place from 2002 to 2003. 

"I want to see justice done, but what [the complainants] need to take away from this is they come forward and tell the truth, they will be respected. And justice will be done," Silverstein said.

"What they can't do is participate in a prosecution and decide for themselves what to admit and what not to admit. What truth to tell and what truth not to tell. I hope that that's the takeaway here."

The first woman to testify told court that Ghomeshi had pulled her hair and punched her in the head at his home after a dinner date. DeCoutere said the former Q host had choked and slapped her at his home. The third woman said Ghomeshi had squeezed her neck and covered her mouth while they were kissing on a park bench.

But it was later revealed in court that each woman had had contact with Ghomeshi following the alleged assaults and that details of this contact had not been provided to police or the Crown in their initial statements.

A question of credibility

The case, said Ottawa-based criminal defence lawyer Michael Spratt, was determined on the credibility and reliability of the witnesses.

"There were no smoking guns, as the judge said, there were no corroborating witness, no DNA evidence, and as the judge rightly noted, that's not required. But what is required is to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a very high standard, that the witnesses were telling the truth. 

"Given the deficiencies in their evidence, the judge pointed out that very high standard obviously wasn't met."

Pratt said the judge was clear that an inconsistency, or lack of memory, or something that may seem unusual to an outside observer like contact with the accused, isn't necessarily enough to raise doubt, and that there can still be convictions when those pieces of evidence exist.

What was rightly called out by the judge, he said, was the lack of disclosure, the reluctance to disclose and explain the inconsistencies and illogical pieces of the evidence.

"That was problematic, not the inconsistencies themselves"

Judge considers appeal court

Some noted the strong language Horkins used to criticize the complainants' testimony, but Toronto-based criminal defence lawyer John Rosen said that's not necessarily unusual and can vary from case to case. 

"The thing is that his comments, they're really in part for public consumption and in part for the court of appeal," Rosen said. "He has to explain why he's acquitting in case the Crown wants to appeal. So he has to be very clear in his statements."

Rosen said that in the Ghomeshi trial the witnesses made the same mistake that many complainants in this kind of case makes 

"Given the deficiencies in their evidence, the judge pointed out that very high standard obviously wasn't met."

"They don't give a full on account of themselves and they're not truthful when they first speak to the police and they hold things back purposely and it always gets them into trouble."

"The thing about court is that it's a search for truth. Unless people are completely truthful and up front about everything — the good, the bad, the ugly — they're going to run into problems." 

Toronto-based criminal defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger commended the judge for a "very detailed, thorough analysis of all the evidence. It's a very well-written and analyzed decision."

"There is a lot of foundation and evidence for the judge to make findings of deception and lack of credibility and reliability in this case," Neuberger told CBC's As It Happens. "There is a lot of material that, for one reason or another, was not provided to the police when they were conducting their interviews and not disclosed to the Crown. [It's] extremely damaging to the reliability and credibility of these witnesses."

Also on HuffPost

Photo gallery Jian Ghomeshi Case: A Timeline See Gallery