Defence questions memory of witness during cross-examination in Neil Joynt retrial

The first witness who testified against Neil Joynt, a long-time OHL billet and Kingston teacher accused of sexual assault of his students, took the stand again on Wednesday for a grueling cross-examination.

Ottawa-based defence lawyer Oliver Abergel spent most of Wednesday questioning the accuracy of the witness’s memory, who cannot be named due to a publication ban.

On more than one occasion, the defence counsel said he was concerned about the witness’s memories, even suggesting some were “fake” and that the witness was lying about ever being assaulted by his former gym teacher.

The witness claims Joynt sexually assaulted him in the 1960s, while he was a 13-year-old student in Joynt’s physical education class. He claims his memories are sparse when it comes to Joynt, but that he vividly remembers being assaulted by his teacher on a weekend sleepover at Joynt’s parents home, where the two shared a bed.

2:08 SAC Kingston says new Ontario response program will exclude victims of sexual assault

Joynt was originally found guilty of assaulting this particular witness in 2016, in addition to one other male student, but Joynt was granted a retrial on two technicalities, so both men have been giving their testimonies anew over the last week.

Cross-examination of the first witness was delayed until Wednesday due to technical difficulties at the Napanee court. But on Wednesday, the defence counsel noted multiple inconsistencies in the complainant’s telling of the events over the years — from his initial report to police, through the first trial and on into his most recent testimony on Monday.

Namely, Abergel picked apart the witness’s account of time.

The lawyer focused on the timeline around when the witness first reported the alleged assault to both his brother and his mother. Abergel noted the witness originally said he told his mother about the assault at the age of 15 or 16, but in his most recent testimony, he said he couldn’t remember if he even told his mother.

Defence counsel also questioned the witness about the timing of the alleged assault, pointing out that when the complainant first reported to police, he said the assault may have happened in February, or sometime closer to Christmas. In his later testimony, however, he was certain the assault happened closer to late winter or early spring.

The witness also originally stated he was 12 and in Grade 7 at the time of the assault, but later changed that detail to 13 and in Grade 8.

Abergel also claimed that the witness’s mother was close to Joynt, and invited him to Thanksgiving years after the alleged assault. According to the defence, she had also left an open invitation for Joynt to sleep at the witness’s family home on evenings with poor weather, since, according to the defence lawyer, Joynt lived in Battersea with his parents at the time, something the witness disputed remembering.

Often, the witness referred to his hazy and sometimes blank memories concerning Joynt when there were potential inconsistencies in his testimony.

The complainant said he vividly remembered the assault because it was a traumatic event that stuck in his mind. He claims that afterwards he made a conscious effort to never think of Joynt again.

Cross-examination of the second witness will continue in a Napanee court on Thursday.