Warning: This story discusses sexual violence that may be triggering for some readers.

Another delay in sentencing brought a victim of a sexual assault to tears in 琉璃神社鈥檚 Supreme Court on May 27.

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

鈥淚鈥檓 still reeling from how gut-wrenchingly horrible that was,鈥� said a person who was in court and witnessed the proceedings, in a statement to Black Press Media. Due to fear of repercussions, the person has asked to remain anonymous.

The survivor will be referred to as Jane Doe as her name cannot be released due to a court-ordered publication ban. Doe has previously said she feels as though she has been living in a nightmare for the past four years since the assault took place on Christmas Eve, 2020.

Two years after the assault, on Nov. 5, 2022, Joshua Hawco was found guilty of sexual assault in a unanimous decision by a jury of 12 people.

READ MORE: Jury finds 琉璃神社 man guilty of sexual assault

Prior to the beginning of the proceedings, Hawco had the option to elect for a trial by jury and judge or by judge alone, as is the case for any person accused of a serious crime. Hawco chose to proceed to trial with both judge and jury.

During the trial, Doe testified that she had been sleeping in her bed when she was woken up by Hawco as he was sexually assaulting her in the early morning. He was a stranger to her and had been invited over to the residence by her roommate for a first date. After her roommate fell asleep, Hawco entered Doe鈥檚 room while she slept and assaulted her in her bed.

Months after the jury鈥檚 verdict, but before sentencing, Hawco filed, which has resulted in delays in sentencing.

READ MORE:

Hawco claims to have had his Charter rights violated as a portion of Doe鈥檚 statement was redacted in the submissions he received. After the guilty verdict, he applied for and was granted access to the redacted portions of the statement.

Based on the court documents available to the public, it is not clear exactly what information was redacted but Hawco submits that the information would have been useful to know prior to the trial and may have aided in his defence.

Crown argued that the onus on applying for disclosure is on defence and said Hawco鈥檚 lawyer had the time and opportunity to request un-redacted copies of the statements before the beginning of the trial.

On March 28, 2024, Justice Weatherill denied Hawco鈥檚 application stating; 鈥淗aving reviewed the Redacted Portions, and although possibly relevant to the defence, on balance I am not persuaded that they reached the level of materiality(sic) that would warrant a mistrial being ordered,鈥� and dismissed the file.

On the day that was scheduled for sentencing, Doe had prepared to read her victim impact statement to the court.

Before the impact statement was read, Hawco鈥檚 lawyer argued that because it did not meet the standards o the statement should not be read to the court.

Justice Weatherill conceded and ruled that the statement was to be amended and a new date would be set for sentencing.

Court will reconvene on June 3, to fix a date for sentencing.