When the Law Doesn’t See Trauma: A Therapist’s Take on the London Hockey Verdict
Most people know me as a perinatal therapist—I work with moms navigating trauma, identity shifts, and healing after difficult experiences. So why am I commenting on a high-profile sexual assault trial?
Before I became a social worker, I studied Criminology and Psychology with a minor in Law. My early academic focus was on understanding why people offend—and how we can prevent it. I dreamed of becoming a profiler with CSIS. I completed a placement at the Royal Ottawa Hospital Forensic Psychiatry Unit, sat in on sexual offender treatment groups, conducted an independent study using offender data from the Royal , and eventually gathered my own data through an Honours thesis on sexual coercion and attitudes toward women.
Now, as a trauma therapist focused on women’s health, I’ve spent years supporting survivors and witnessing the ripple effects of coercion, silence, and disbelief. I’m not a legal expert, and this blog isn’t meant to interpret the law—but to offer a trauma-informed lens on the recent London hockey trial. My goal is to validate the confusion and heartbreak many are feeling, to educate about the psychology of consent, and to advocate for the deeper change our systems still desperately need.
Why I’m Speaking Up
In 2007, I wrote my undergraduate thesis on sexual coercion, exploring how implicit and explicit attitudes toward women predicted likelihood of coercive behaviour. I found that one-third of male students said they might coerce or rape if they believed they wouldn't be caught—not hardened offenders, but regular classmates. The data didn’t lie. It was alarming and yet, not outside of the norm for research at that time. Study after study over decades found that sexual coercion was not rare or limited to a specific subset of the population.
Today, I’m a trauma therapist. And watching the verdict in the recent London, Ontario trial—where five former world junior players were acquitted of sexual assault—felt devastating but predictable. (The Guardian+15The Washington Post+15The Times of India+15). I cannot speak to the content of the trial, I did not witness the events. What I can speak to is the internal reaction you might be having and the commonality of these events in our communities. For so many, hearing about another woman being denied her own right to her belief about consent is heartbreaking, anger provoking and triggers helplessness threatening to take away your perceived safety all at the same time.
Why the Verdict Rings Hollow
Justice Maria Carroccia ruled the complainant’s testimony was not credible or reliable and concluded that the Crown failed to meet its burden of proof—so the accused were found not guilty.
But public horror at the outcome reflects what happens off the record: the reality of fear, coercion, shame, and confusion that survivors live with. Many are asking—rightfully—if silence or freeze responses count as assault. In the courtroom, often they don’t.
What My Research Still Tells Us
My thesis examined both explicit hostility and implicit biases. Men with higher hostility toward women scales—and unspoken entitlement—were more likely to admit coercive intentions. These attitudes can be non-conscious, even among people who explicitly claim to respect women.
Consent isn’t simply about hearing a “no.” It requires mutuality, capacity, presence, and safety—especially when power, alcohol, or confusion is involved.
The Dangerous Role of “Consent Videos”
During the trial, short videos surfaced in which the woman seems to say she was “OK with this” and that “it was all consensual.” Legal experts, however, have cautioned that such videos—especially taken under pressure or intoxication—are not valid proof of consent. These clips can obscure the trauma and coercion survivors later process. (Global News)
Videos after an event don’t override unspoken fear, freeze response, or coercion. They don’t capture the power dynamics at play.
Bridging the Gap Between Law and Lived Experience
The law relies on credibility, consistency, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Trauma speaks through confusion, dissociation, and second-guessing—not clean narratives. That doesn't invalidate lived truth—but it often fails in court.
Survivors and trauma-informed therapists understand this divide deeply. The verdict may reflect legal standards—but it does not heal cultural and personal wounds.
What Needs to Change
Broader public understanding that coercion, intoxication, and trauma responses aren’t less real than force.
Trauma-informed training for police, lawyers, judges—understanding how shame, freeze, and disorientation shape behavior.
In sports and institutions: culture shift toward accountability, human respect, humility and reflection.
Consent education that goes beyond “no means no,” teaching mutuality, context, and emotional awareness.
To everyone who feels disbelieved, enraged, or exhausted after this verdict—you are not overreacting. You are responding. And your response matters.
**Disclaimer:
The content of this blog is for informational and educational purposes only. It reflects the professional and personal views of the author, Amber Sperling, MSW, RSW, a registered social worker and trauma therapist, and is not intended as legal advice. While this piece references aspects of a recent legal case, the author is not a lawyer and does not offer legal interpretation. If you are affected by sexual assault or need legal guidance, please consult a qualified attorney or a local sexual assault support service. This blog aims to provide trauma-informed insight, validate lived experience, and advocate for greater understanding—not to critique specific legal rulings.
