A jury began deliberations Wednesday afternoon on whether a former chief of the Fort St. James fire department sexually assaulted three female volunteers.
They did so after B.C. Supreme Court Justice Heather Holmes delivered her charge - essentially advice on how jury members should approach the case.
She said the central issue is whether the events alleged against Robert Harold Bennett took place and emphasized that Crown prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Jury members must also reach three separate verdicts, Holmes said but noted Bennett is alleged to have committed more than one act against each of the three women and while they must be unanimous in their verdicts, they do not have to agree on which ones occurred, only that an act was committed.
They were also given the option of finding Bennett guilty of assault in regards to an alleged hair-pulling incident involving one of the complainants.
The Crown is alleging a lengthy list of incidents in which Bennett is said to have groped and ground his groin against the three and tried to force himself on one of them, starting in 2007 and ending in summer 2013.
Bennett has admitted to drinking heavily, particularly in the latter years in which the acts are alleged to have occurred, but denies committing the acts and maintains he's certain in his memory of the events in question.
Defence contends the trio fabricated their stories out of frustration with apparent inaction by the District of Fort St. James on Bennett's deteriorating performance, characterizing one of the complainants, Kirsten Rudolph, as the ringleader who pressured the other two into making their allegations.
Holmes explained the concept of reasonable doubt - that it's virtually impossible to prove anything to absolute certainty but the threshold falls much closer to that standard than likelihood or balance of probabilities. If jury members are uncertain of his guilt, they must give Bennett the benefit of reasonable doubt and find him not guilty.
In his defence, Bennett took the stand at one point during the trial. Even if the jury does not believe his testimony, Holmes noted they must still be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt based on all the evidence before they can find him guilty.
Holmes went on to provide advice on how to assess and weight testimony from the witnesses.
She went over testimony speaking to Bennett's good character, testimony that appeared inconsistent with witnesses' statements to police and during a previous trial on the matter, the extent to which the complainants collaborated on their allegations against Bennett and their motivations for doing so.
The three complainants have also filed a civil action against Bennett and the District. A guilty verdict will give them a "substantial advantage" on that front while a not guilt verdict will "not be fatal" to the civil claim, Holmes noted.
Over the course of nine days beginning November 28, the jury heard from seven witnesses called by the Crown and 10 by the defence.
