LONDON, Canada (AFP) — Five Canadian professional hockey players accused of sexually assaulting a woman in 2018 were found not guilty on Thursday, with the judge ruling the complainant’s account of the alleged offenses was not credible.

The case had captured the country’s attention, and raised concern about broader issues in the culture of hockey, Canada’s cherished national sport.

Michael McLeod, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dube, Carter Hart and Callan Foote stood trial on charges they assaulted the woman in a London hotel room following a national men’s junior team celebration.

All denied wrongdoing, claiming the woman — whose identity is protected — was an active and willing participant in a series of sex acts.

Roughly 100 protesters supporting the woman were outside the court when the day began but were gone when court adjourned.

The complainant’s lawyer, Karen Bellehumeur, called the verdict “devastating.”

Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia read out her detailed decision in front of a packed London court, following one of the most closely watched trials in recent Canadian history.

She opened the hearing by declaring that she did “not find the evidence of (the complainant) to be either credible or reliable,” and that prosecutors had failed to prove their case.

Those declarations prompted gasps in the courtroom and embraces among the families of the accused, public broadcaster CBC reported.

Some five hours later, Carroccia announced not guilty verdicts for each of the defendants.

“I find as a fact that the complainant did express that she wanted to engage in sexual activity with the men,” she said.

She ruled there was insufficient evidence to determine the consent expressed by the complainant “was vitiated by fear.”

Criminal trials in Canada are often decided by a jury, but the case shifted to a judge-only trial after two juries were dismissed.

– Multiple investigations –
The complainant, 20 at the time, met McLeod at a bar in London before having sex with him.

That initial encounter was not at issue in the trial, which focused on events that occurred after McLeod messaged a team-wide group chat asking if anyone was interested in a “three-way.”

The court heard the woman engaged in multiple sex acts with the players over a number of hours.

Prosecutors argued the players failed to take steps to ensure her consent.

Defense lawyers said the woman willingly participated and only made the assault allegations after regretting her choices.

In her reasoning for the verdict, the judge said there were “troubling aspects” to how the complainant recalled the events.

Carroccia noted the woman said she was speaking “her truth,” not the truth, “which seemingly blurs the line between what she believes to be true and what is objectively true.”

Bellehumeur said her client faced “insulting, unfair, mocking and disrespectful” treatment from the defense over several days of withering cross-examination.

– Consent videos –
An initial police investigation into the allegations produced no charges.

Subsequent media probes revealed Hockey Canada, a governing body, used funds from subscription fees paid by ordinary families for a $3.55 million CAD ($2.6 million USD) out-of-court settlement with the woman, forcing the resignation of Hockey Canada’s leadership.

Amid public uproar, London police re-opened the case and brought charges against the players last year.

Formenton’s lawyer, Daniel Brown, told reporters after the verdict that London police “got it right seven years ago.”

“Political and media pressure brought this allegation back into the spotlight,” Brown said, accusing prosecutors of “forging ahead with a hopeless prosecution.”

Court proceedings focused on the evolving legal definitions of consent, and the trial addressed videos made by McLeod of the complainant saying she was OK with what happened.

Prosecutors argued the decision to make a video indicated concern the sex was not consensual.

Hart, a former National Hockey League goaltender, testified such videos were common practice among professional athletes.

Carroccia made clear she did not assess the videos as evidence of consent, but found they shed light on the woman’s state of mind.

“She was speaking normally. She was smiling. She did not appear to be upset or in distress,” the judge said.