WARNING: This article contains details of a criminal sexual assault trial which may be disturbing to some readers. If you or someone you know has been impacted by sexual violence, contact Archway Society for Domestic Peace at 250-542-1122. All programs are easily accessible, free of charge and confidential.
Vernon businessman Keith Chase has been found guilty of sexually assaulting a 16-year-old girl while he was her hockey coach in 2004, marking the end of a lengthy court process that hinged on the victim's reliability and credibility as a witness.
Chase, the owner of Chasers Bottle Depot, was first convicted of the sexual assault charge in March 2022 but appealed the conviction and the two-year jail sentence he was given, and a retrial was ordered. His appeal had been on the basis that the trial judge had failed to properly consider inconsistencies between the complainant's police testimony and her trial testimony.
Following the conclusion of the retrial, Chase appeared at the Vernon Law Courts Wednesday, Feb. 5, before B.C. Supreme Court Justice Sheri Ann Donegan, who dismissed the inconsistencies his defence was relying on and found him guilty of the offence for a second time.
The victim, whose name can't be published due to a publication ban, was in Grade 11 at the time of the offence. She was friends with Chase's daughter, and both girls played on a hockey team that Chase coached at the time. When the offence took place, the victim was sleeping over at the Chase residence the night before a hockey game in Kamloops.
Three instances of sexual assault had been alleged to have taken place in the Chase home that night. The first amounted to a kiss on the mouth in the kitchen, the second digital penetration in the bedroom where the victim was staying, and the third cunnilingus in the master bedroom.
Justice Donegan said there was "no question" that the victim correctly identified Chase as the person who committed these offences, adding Chase's actions were purposeful and that he "clearly intended to touch her as he did that night."
"I am also satisfied that Mr. Chase had the requisite knowledge that (the victim) was not consenting to any of his touching," Donegan said. "Silence is not consent. Mr. Chase did not seek to obtain her consent regarding any of the touching that occurred that night, and (the victim) did not communicate in any way that she was consenting to any of the touching that occurred that night."
The defence had previously attempted to highlight inconsistencies in the victim's account of the events that night. Indeed, this was the basis on which the retrial had been granted. In setting out the legal framework of the case, Donegan said the question of the victim's credibility and reliability was essential to the case's outcome.
With the offence having taken place more than 20 years ago, Donegan gave weight to the idea that the passage of time would naturally affect the recollections of the key witnesses in the case 鈥� the victim and her father 鈥� particularly when they were recalling some of the less significant details of events, which the defence had seized upon to cast them as unreliable witnesses.
Donegan said she found the victim's father to be an "exceedingly honest witness" during his testimony at the retrial, adding he didn't let his allegiance to his daughter colour his evidence.
"He made his best effort to not only provide truthful evidence but accurate evidence to the extent of his memory," Donegan said. "He was a thoughtful witness, one who was willing to concede what may be mistaken about memory."
Donegan accepted the father's evidence entirely.
"I reached the same conclusion about (the victim)," Donegan continued. She said she found the victim to be "fair and balanced" in giving her evidence.
"To me, balance exists when a witness admits memory frailties, shies away from embellishment or minimization, admits personally difficult facts, and credibly acknowledges weaknesses in their evidence. A balanced witness does not answer questions strategically in the sense that they answer questions responsibly, and they do not attempt to unreasonably control the narrative. They do not appear to have an agenda. (The victim) was, to me, such a witness."
Donegan said certain memories of the victim struck her as genuine, such as the placement of Chase's hand, the feel of his facial hair on her face, and the distinctive sound accompanied by one of the acts of sexual assault, a sound that she'd testified remains "vivid in her memory to this day."
"She recalled the confusion, the shame, and the guilt she felt. She recalled breaking down emotionally the following day when she saw her father. These are all examples of the unique and very compelling details that are indicative of true memories and not of fabrication or reconstruction," Donegan said.
The judge said some of the victim's inconsistencies amounted to a weakness in reliability but not credibility, adding she found these weaknesses "do not undermine the reliability of the court question of whether or not what she describes having happened that night actually happened."
Donegan mentioned a conversation between the victim's father and Chase, which took place in 2008, coincidentally on the same day that the victim told her parents about the sexual assault. The father had gone to insure his vehicle at an insurance company next to Chase's business, and Chase, who knew the father from coaching hockey, called out to him.
When the father told Chase what his daughter had just told him, the court heard that Chase responded by saying it was "probably not as bad as (the victim) said it was," Donegan recounted. The father told Chase he would believe his daughter.
The judge did not point to his exchange as an admission of guilt, but as an acknowledgement on Chase's part that "some type of previous interaction" had happened between Chase and the victim.
Ultimately, Donegan accepted the victim's account of what happened that night "despite the challenges to her memory and any inconsistencies."
Chase was asked to stand before hearing his guilty verdict. His reaction to the verdict was muted; he sat down again without word or gesture. He left the courtroom with a few supporters and will hear his sentence at a later date.
The matter will return to court on Feb. 18 to schedule a date for sentencing.
