Totally agree with you sentiment Mike - There could never be a fair trial. To date I don't believe there is a person charged with any offence and in fact no complete investigation - The media dogs have been sicced on to an alleged offender and there is no sub judice. Sub judice is now irrelevant to journalists because, a substantial risk of serious prejudice can only be created by a media report when proceedings are active.
-- Edited by Possum3 on Tuesday 23rd of February 2021 08:18:03 AM
Bush walker said
08:57 AM Feb 23, 2021
Just rehibilate the peice of **** with a peice of rope and all the polititions that covered it up and allowed him to get away with it and rape other women
montie said
09:00 AM Feb 23, 2021
Mike Harding wrote:
I don't see how this bloke can now get a fair trial:
So far it is purely allegations with no supporting evidence and the guy has been hung drawn and quartered by the media!
Having said that, if recent rape and sexual assault cases are anything to go by evidence doesn't seem to be necessary.....just the word of the accuser seems to be enough to obtain a conviction.
If you are going to make accusations of rape two years after the event I would have thought supporting evidence would be necessary to prove your claim.
-- Edited by montie on Tuesday 23rd of February 2021 09:37:34 AM
DMaxer said
09:16 AM Feb 23, 2021
I don't think it will unduly prejudice any trial in the future as most trials are usually conducted months, if not years after the alleged offender is charged and events have been reported ad nauseum in the press. Trial juries are directed by the presiding justice to disregard any articles they have read or heard and to come to a verdict on the evidence before them.
What is also disturbing about these allegations is that two allegedly intoxicated people are roaming about in the Minister for Defence's office for a considerable period of time. If reporting was correct, at least one of these persons was not accredited entry and was signed in. This is the Minister for Defence's office, not the staff library. One would imagine that there were sensitive documents or classified material in this office and yet there is supposedly no CCTV or security cameras to record any break in or tampering with classified or sensitive material. I would have thought that there would be red alerts everywhere and everyone would have been informed that there had been an unlawful entry into one of the most sensitive areas of Parliament House. It beggars belief that this would not have been the talking point of all people who worked there followed up by a massive investigation to ensure that nothing had been taken or viewed. The people could have been spies or terrorists yet no body seemed to know or care. Wouldn't you think that no matter what industry one worked in, if people were found there after hours that the people in charge would want a full report as to why they were there and then verified these reasons by accessing CCTV etc. Information like this would be relayed to the CEO to ensure that no securities had been breached. This was the Ministry for Defence and apparently nothing was done except terminate one of the person's employment with no other follow up taking place.
God help us if that had been an alien or terrorist network at work.
Your assertions are unfortunately total rubbish Montie. This is not the law and never has been. Perhaps you should leave the law and its administration to those who are qualified.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Tuesday 23rd of February 2021 09:19:43 AM
Whenarewethere said
09:20 AM Feb 23, 2021
I have been on a jury which went for a few weeks.
Everyone must have a fair trial & they should be provided equal funds for legal representation which currently does not happen.
montie said
09:39 AM Feb 23, 2021
DMaxer wrote:
I don't think it will unduly prejudice any trial in the future as most trials are usually conducted months, if not years after the alleged offender is charged and events have been reported ad nauseum in the press. Trial juries are directed by the presiding justice to disregard any articles they have read or heard and to come to a verdict on the evidence before them.
What is also disturbing about these allegations is that two allegedly intoxicated people are roaming about in the Minister for Defence's office for a considerable period of time. If reporting was correct, at least one of these persons was not accredited entry and was signed in. This is the Minister for Defence's office, not the staff library. One would imagine that there were sensitive documents or classified material in this office and yet there is supposedly no CCTV or security cameras to record any break in or tampering with classified or sensitive material. I would have thought that there would be red alerts everywhere and everyone would have been informed that there had been an unlawful entry into one of the most sensitive areas of Parliament House. It beggars belief that this would not have been the talking point of all people who worked there followed up by a massive investigation to ensure that nothing had been taken or viewed. The people could have been spies or terrorists yet no body seemed to know or care. Wouldn't you think that no matter what industry one worked in, if people were found there after hours that the people in charge would want a full report as to why they were there and then verified these reasons by accessing CCTV etc. Information like this would be relayed to the CEO to ensure that no securities had been breached. This was the Ministry for Defence and apparently nothing was done except terminate one of the person's employment with no other follow up taking place.
God help us if that had been an alien or terrorist network at work.
Your assertions are unfortunately total rubbish Montie. This is not the law and never has been. Perhaps you should leave the law and its administration to those who are qualified.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Tuesday 23rd of February 2021 09:19:43 AM
Yep, ask George Pell!
DMaxer said
09:49 AM Feb 23, 2021
That was the misapplication of a legal principle Montie, not one of evidence.
bgt said
10:22 AM Feb 23, 2021
Allegations. No more no less. But a question I want to ask and will get shot down for I guess. Why do these women wait so long to take any action? Not just in this case. What's wrong with going to the police? And if someone wants privacy why do a TV interview?
And it's always the boss who take the blame. We had a business with 60 staff. Mostly young folks who tend to muck around more than they should. We had a case where one young male made an allegation against another young male. After hours but still on the property. A settlement was made between lawyers before it got to court. Because the payout was less than the legal costs. And the boss should have had better supervision.
I smell a lot of politics in this debate.
Wanda said
10:22 AM Feb 23, 2021
This is just opening another platform for some of the bitter, twisted, white males that, one could argue, have trouble joining the 21st century and recognising equality I think it would be in the interest of the admin to close this down before it becomes another chauvinistic rant regards Ian
yobarr said
10:31 AM Feb 23, 2021
montie wrote:
Mike Harding wrote:
I don't see how this bloke can now get a fair trial:
So far it is purely allegations with no supporting evidence and the guy has been hung drawn and quartered by the media!
Having said that, if recent rape and sexual assault cases are anything to go by evidence doesn't seem to be necessary.....just the word of the accuser seems to be enough to obtain a conviction.
If you are going to make accusations of rape two years after the event I would have thought supporting evidence would be necessary to prove your claim.
Montie,I agree with everything you've written above,particularly the words "...evidence doesn't seem to be necessary". Now I see that we have a few more "victims" jumping on the bandwagon...undoubtedly they now will seek "compensation?". Like you,I wonder why it has taken this female 2 years to decide she'd been "raped"? Cheers
Gundog said
10:37 AM Feb 23, 2021
I have a problem with this particular case, yes it has been trial by media, but I cannot understand what was in the thinking of the initial complainant, makes a complaint and then withdraws it only raise it again after an extrordiary amount of time has lapsed.
Where is the evidence to support the claim, thus it becomes her word against the accused, since this has been aired by the media he has been found guilty, ah but theres more now we have 3 others claiming the same crime, again lacking evidence.
I'm not saying it didnt happen but what concerns me greatly is the lack of supporting evidence, are we following the American system that evidence is not required to gain a conviction, but hear say, innuendo and media can.
rgren2 said
10:51 AM Feb 23, 2021
The whole thing smells of politics.
bgt said
10:55 AM Feb 23, 2021
Wanda you want to shut down a discussion that you don't have to read.
Wanda said
11:22 AM Feb 23, 2021
bgt wrote:
Wanda you want to shut down a discussion that you don't have to read.
Quite true, I have actually had a gut full of some of the bitter twisted people who hide behind a so called discussion(rant) while venting their own twisted chauvinistic views.
bgt said
11:27 AM Feb 23, 2021
Wanda you know it's not illegal to have differing views.
Greg 1 said
12:26 PM Feb 23, 2021
If this alleged perpetrator did rape this young lady, then as far as I am concerned he should be in jail for a long time and if I had my way, missing certain parts of his anatomy.
But I also asked the question. Why did she not make a formal complaint to the police at the time when, if you can believe the narrative ,two ministers encouraged her to do so including one of those offering to go with her to the police?
It is a bit gobsmacking that it would appear that a few people tried to do something for her but she did not want to get this guy charged.
If she was not prepared to go through the proper process I am not sure what else one could do.
I understand that it would be very difficult and traumatic for a young women to have to go through this, but unfortunately as individuals we have to accept the choices we make in life and not wait two years to start complaining to the media and still not have lodged a formal complaint with the police.
Tony LEE said
12:29 PM Feb 23, 2021
"I don't see how this bloke can now get a fair trial:"
Shaping up to be that he doesn't deserve a fair trial
Mike Harding said
01:08 PM Feb 23, 2021
Wanda wrote:
I think it would be in the interest of the admin to close this down before it becomes another chauvinistic rant regards
A thread about fair trials... and you want to ban it... can you not see the irony....?
Sadly, probably not I suspect.
dogbox said
02:12 PM Feb 23, 2021
Greg 1 wrote:
If this alleged perpetrator did rape this young lady, then as far as I am concerned he should be in jail for a long time and if I had my way, missing certain parts of his anatomy.
But I also asked the question. Why did she not make a formal complaint to the police at the time when, if you can believe the narrative ,two ministers encouraged her to do so including one of those offering to go with her to the police? It is a bit gobsmacking that it would appear that a few people tried to do something for her but she did not want to get this guy charged. If she was not prepared to go through the proper process I am not sure what else one could do. I understand that it would be very difficult and traumatic for a young women to have to go through this, but unfortunately as individuals we have to accept the choices we make in life and not wait two years to start complaining to the media and still not have lodged a formal complaint with the police.
she probably wanted to keep her job but in the end it became to much. once one speaks up others come forward an speak up , there must have been a few brave men around who knew what he was like as it is starting to sound like it was a regular thing with him.
Greg 1 said
02:21 PM Feb 23, 2021
The only thing that I am critical of really, is that if you want to come forward then go to the police not the media. At least as a first stop.
That others have now felt able to come forward is a good thing but trial by media isn't nor is picking over who knew what as she wasn't prepared to go to the police at the time, so what more could anyone do.
It has just turned the whole sordid episode into a media circus and a political witch hunt all of which is not helpful in my opinion, and at last count she still had not put in a formal complaint to the police for gods sake.
Mike Harding said
02:42 PM Feb 23, 2021
Wanda wrote:
This is just opening another platform for some of the bitter, twisted, white males that, one could argue, have trouble joining the 21st century and recognising equality I think it would be in the interest of the admin to close this down before it becomes another chauvinistic rant regards Ian
Whoa there Ian!
I was slow in picking this one up.
>bitter, twisted, white males
Tell me please when would you refer to "bitter, twisted, black males"?
Mike Harding said
02:45 PM Feb 23, 2021
Dmaxer: I don't agree.
A judge telling a jury to disregard everything they have read/heard/seen via the news media.
Which would you prefer - a trial with no previous media coverage or one which has been done to death by the Prime Minister, sundry politicians and every media organisation in Oz?
DMaxer said
03:37 PM Feb 23, 2021
Most trials have had extensive media coverage Mike. Although it would be lovely to have the jury hear every single thing for the first time that is not going to happen. Jury trials have been going on for centuries with a lot of trials conducted in country towns with a jury made up of the locals. They all went in with knowledge of what had been said by other locals and in fact the party that is disadvantaged is the prosecution.
The jury is directed by the judge on what is evidence and what can be taken into account and what should be disregarded or given little weight. If the jury returns a verdict of guilty against the credibility of the evidence there lies an appeal for an unsafe verdict and the conviction can be set aside. I have seen judges direct the jury that the prosecution case is questionable at best and that a guilty verdict would be unsafe.
Every so often things may go wrong but that is what the appellate jurisdiction is there for.
Mike Harding said
04:36 PM Feb 23, 2021
Ah, Dmaxer; you have so much more faith in the law than do I.
yobarr said
04:41 PM Feb 23, 2021
Mike Harding wrote:
Dmaxer: I don't agree.
A judge telling a jury to disregard everything they have read/heard/seen via the news media.
Which would you prefer - a trial with no previous media coverage or one which has been done to death by the Prime Minister, sundry politicians and every media organisation in Oz?
Having your fate determined by 12 people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty surely would be of concern? Cheers
Whenarewethere said
04:59 PM Feb 23, 2021
When I got picked for jury duty I was please as I wanted to experience the whole process.
The bureaucracy side of things was tedious, but the interaction with the others involved was interesting. Really mentally exhausting, but nevertheless I'm glad to have done it.
I wouldn't want to be a a gruesome case. I would enjoy a highly technical case.
DMaxer said
05:35 PM Feb 23, 2021
If there is any concern by the defence that the jury might have a preconceived idea then they just elect for a judge alone trial.
Farmhat said
05:48 PM Feb 23, 2021
DMaxer wrote:
If there is any concern by the defence that the jury might have a preconceived idea then they just elect for a judge alone trial.
Why could a judge not have a preconceived idea?
They are just as human as jury folk. (might be questionable though :) )
Joe
-- Edited by Farmhat on Tuesday 23rd of February 2021 05:49:38 PM
peter67 said
05:54 PM Feb 23, 2021
In the first couple of days reporting i'm sure that she was reported as going to police initially but then choosing not to proceed. I believe not proceeding in some cases happens when police explain how complicated, long drawn out and confronting ( to the victom ) the whole court case may be.
-- Edited by peter67 on Tuesday 23rd of February 2021 05:55:18 PM
I don't see how this bloke can now get a fair trial:
The Age
Totally agree with you sentiment Mike - There could never be a fair trial.
To date I don't believe there is a person charged with any offence and in fact no complete investigation - The media dogs have been sicced on to an alleged offender and there is no sub judice.
Sub judice is now irrelevant to journalists because, a substantial risk of serious prejudice can only be created by a media report when proceedings are active.
-- Edited by Possum3 on Tuesday 23rd of February 2021 08:18:03 AM
Just rehibilate the peice of **** with a peice of rope and all the polititions that covered it up and allowed him to get away with it and rape other women
So far it is purely allegations with no supporting evidence and the guy has been hung drawn and quartered by the media!
Having said that, if recent rape and sexual assault cases are anything to go by evidence doesn't seem to be necessary.....just the word of the accuser seems to be enough to obtain a conviction.
If you are going to make accusations of rape two years after the event I would have thought supporting evidence would be necessary to prove your claim.
-- Edited by montie on Tuesday 23rd of February 2021 09:37:34 AM
I don't think it will unduly prejudice any trial in the future as most trials are usually conducted months, if not years after the alleged offender is charged and events have been reported ad nauseum in the press. Trial juries are directed by the presiding justice to disregard any articles they have read or heard and to come to a verdict on the evidence before them.
What is also disturbing about these allegations is that two allegedly intoxicated people are roaming about in the Minister for Defence's office for a considerable period of time. If reporting was correct, at least one of these persons was not accredited entry and was signed in. This is the Minister for Defence's office, not the staff library. One would imagine that there were sensitive documents or classified material in this office and yet there is supposedly no CCTV or security cameras to record any break in or tampering with classified or sensitive material. I would have thought that there would be red alerts everywhere and everyone would have been informed that there had been an unlawful entry into one of the most sensitive areas of Parliament House. It beggars belief that this would not have been the talking point of all people who worked there followed up by a massive investigation to ensure that nothing had been taken or viewed. The people could have been spies or terrorists yet no body seemed to know or care. Wouldn't you think that no matter what industry one worked in, if people were found there after hours that the people in charge would want a full report as to why they were there and then verified these reasons by accessing CCTV etc. Information like this would be relayed to the CEO to ensure that no securities had been breached. This was the Ministry for Defence and apparently nothing was done except terminate one of the person's employment with no other follow up taking place.
God help us if that had been an alien or terrorist network at work.
Your assertions are unfortunately total rubbish Montie. This is not the law and never has been. Perhaps you should leave the law and its administration to those who are qualified.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Tuesday 23rd of February 2021 09:19:43 AM
I have been on a jury which went for a few weeks.
Everyone must have a fair trial & they should be provided equal funds for legal representation which currently does not happen.
Yep, ask George Pell!
That was the misapplication of a legal principle Montie, not one of evidence.
And it's always the boss who take the blame. We had a business with 60 staff. Mostly young folks who tend to muck around more than they should. We had a case where one young male made an allegation against another young male. After hours but still on the property. A settlement was made between lawyers before it got to court. Because the payout was less than the legal costs. And the boss should have had better supervision.
I smell a lot of politics in this debate.
This is just opening another platform for some of the bitter, twisted, white males that, one could argue, have trouble joining the 21st century and recognising equality
I think it would be in the interest of the admin to close this down before it becomes another chauvinistic rant
regards
Ian
Montie,I agree with everything you've written above,particularly the words "...evidence doesn't seem to be necessary". Now I see that we have a few more "victims" jumping on the bandwagon...undoubtedly they now will seek "compensation?". Like you,I wonder why it has taken this female 2 years to decide she'd been "raped"? Cheers
I have a problem with this particular case, yes it has been trial by media, but I cannot understand what was in the thinking of the initial complainant, makes a complaint and then withdraws it only raise it again after an extrordiary amount of time has lapsed.
Where is the evidence to support the claim, thus it becomes her word against the accused, since this has been aired by the media he has been found guilty, ah but theres more now we have 3 others claiming the same crime, again lacking evidence.
I'm not saying it didnt happen but what concerns me greatly is the lack of supporting evidence, are we following the American system that evidence is not required to gain a conviction, but hear say, innuendo and media can.
Quite true, I have actually had a gut full of some of the bitter twisted people who hide behind a so called discussion(rant) while venting their own twisted chauvinistic views.
A thread about fair trials... and you want to ban it... can you not see the irony....?
Sadly, probably not I suspect.
she probably wanted to keep her job but in the end it became to much. once one speaks up others come forward an speak up , there must have been a few brave men around who knew what he was like as it is starting to sound like it was a regular thing with him.
Whoa there Ian!
I was slow in picking this one up.
>bitter, twisted, white males
Tell me please when would you refer to "bitter, twisted, black males"?
Dmaxer: I don't agree.
A judge telling a jury to disregard everything they have read/heard/seen via the news media.
Which would you prefer - a trial with no previous media coverage or one which has been done to death by the Prime Minister, sundry politicians and every media organisation in Oz?
Most trials have had extensive media coverage Mike. Although it would be lovely to have the jury hear every single thing for the first time that is not going to happen. Jury trials have been going on for centuries with a lot of trials conducted in country towns with a jury made up of the locals. They all went in with knowledge of what had been said by other locals and in fact the party that is disadvantaged is the prosecution.
The jury is directed by the judge on what is evidence and what can be taken into account and what should be disregarded or given little weight. If the jury returns a verdict of guilty against the credibility of the evidence there lies an appeal for an unsafe verdict and the conviction can be set aside. I have seen judges direct the jury that the prosecution case is questionable at best and that a guilty verdict would be unsafe.
Every so often things may go wrong but that is what the appellate jurisdiction is there for.
Ah, Dmaxer; you have so much more faith in the law than do I.
Having your fate determined by 12 people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty surely would be of concern? Cheers
When I got picked for jury duty I was please as I wanted to experience the whole process.
The bureaucracy side of things was tedious, but the interaction with the others involved was interesting. Really mentally exhausting, but nevertheless I'm glad to have done it.
I wouldn't want to be a a gruesome case. I would enjoy a highly technical case.
If there is any concern by the defence that the jury might have a preconceived idea then they just elect for a judge alone trial.
Why could a judge not have a preconceived idea?
They are just as human as jury folk. (might be questionable though :) )
Joe
-- Edited by Farmhat on Tuesday 23rd of February 2021 05:49:38 PM
In the first couple of days reporting i'm sure that she was reported as going to police initially but then choosing not to proceed. I believe not proceeding in some cases happens when police explain how complicated, long drawn out and confronting ( to the victom ) the whole court case may be.
-- Edited by peter67 on Tuesday 23rd of February 2021 05:55:18 PM