There is a court case occurring where at the commencement of the second week the accuser who was supposed to continue with cross examination on Monday was unavailable, but the case is continuing in the person's absence after a second day
Why would a case continue without the accuser present, the judge has a media on the reason for not attending. Would it not be prudent to say that person is ill.
But the minute you use a media blackout, on all preceding because of the absence of the accuser and the trial continues sounds suss to me.
Wild speculation could sujest conspiracy theories ie needing coaching to contend with the cross examination, etc or is the person have mental health problems with the pressure of giving evidence..
Should not the trial be suspended.
Very strange to me whats being hidden.
rgren2 said
07:51 AM Oct 12, 2022
Book deals were made before police informed, a media person made a statement at an event, the media person was in a bidding war with another media person. Follow the money.
Possum3 said
08:23 AM Oct 12, 2022
Let's just hope the Learned Judge is aware of the "outside interferences and inferences" and rules accordingly - Another case of trial by media where Justice is impossible.
Mike Harding said
08:25 AM Oct 12, 2022
Possum3 wrote:
Another case of trial by media where Justice is impossible.
Indeed. And there are far too many of those currently and they're ruining people's lives.
Edit: typo.
-- Edited by Mike Harding on Wednesday 12th of October 2022 09:44:13 AM
Rob Driver said
09:27 AM Oct 12, 2022
Yes I agree, it is a strange situation.
From what we here on the media her absence was after statements given by security and a cleaner.
As was originally reported it may be the case that their statements dont fit her agenda.
It would be in fact absolutely horrid if a young mans life was ruined by the judgement being skewed by the media and the view of some politicians.
Just let the justice be fair in this country.
DMaxer said
10:07 AM Oct 12, 2022
In every criminal case the alleged victim is a witness, not a party. In every criminal case the alleged victim is free to go after giving evidence but may be recalled by leave. It is not unusual for witnesses to be unavailable during evidence in chief, cross examination or re examination. When this happens the trial proceeds with another witness and when the original witness is then available, that witness proceeds under their original oath or affirmation.
Perhaps it might be a good idea to leave these procedures in the hands of people that are competent and qualified to administer them. In the interim, you can give your biased views based on whatever tripe you have read in the MSM or heard on your favourite right wing television station.
If you are all confused and bored why not google the Doctrine of Recent Complaint. Perhaps you might learn something but I doubt it.
Gundog said
10:41 AM Oct 12, 2022
DMaxer wrote:
In every criminal case the alleged victim is a witness, not a party. In every criminal case the alleged victim is free to go after giving evidence but may be recalled by leave. It is not unusual for witnesses to be unavailable during evidence in chief, cross examination or re examination. When this happens the trial proceeds with another witness and when the original witness is then available, that witness proceeds under their original oath or affirmation.
Perhaps it might be a good idea to leave these procedures in the hands of people that are competent and qualified to administer them. In the interim, you can give your biased views based on whatever tripe you have read in the MSM or heard on your favourite right wing television station.
If you are all confused and bored why not google the Doctrine of Recent Complaint. Perhaps you might learn something but I doubt it.
I was hoping you would pop up on this one, so please explain WHY because the alleged victim is unavailable to proceed with cross examination by the defence legal representatives. A media blackout is imposed to the nature of the unavailability of the witness, and all evidence from other witnesses, untill the return of the alleged victim.
In effect if the alleged victim absence is prolonged the media blackout will remain how that fair, because the alleged victim used the media to promote a narrative against the alleged offender
dorian said
11:09 AM Oct 12, 2022
It seems to me that this discussion is not so much about whether the machinations of the legal system and legal fraternity are procedurally correct, but whether they are in line with the expectations of the average fair-minded citizen (are they ever?). Not that the law makers or judges give a damn anyway ...
KevinJ said
12:18 PM Oct 12, 2022
How many times is a case won or lost on a "technicality" rather than based on the "reasonable person" test?
the rocket said
04:02 PM Oct 12, 2022
I have no idea what case you are talking about.
Craig1 said
07:49 PM Oct 12, 2022
You are very lucky Rocket, and you lead a sheltered life. Lucky you. ( not having a go at you either)
woolman said
01:11 PM Oct 13, 2022
I believe the whole issue of sexual abuse needs a total revamp. A lot of victims are so traumatised that they won't pursue a legal claim. On the other side i have 4 mates charged with historical sexual abuuse, 40 years after supposed event. All were summed up by judge in direction to jury that it is a finacial claim or a figmant of girls imagination. Fter $300,000 plus bing spent on lawyers etc to be found not guilty, but all lost their jobs despite verdict.
Surely there could be a way these hearings could be confidential delt with by a couple of mmagistrates /judges without any public disclosure of those involved, instad of just the males name is made public as is now.
Just my two bobs worth
Neil
Mike Harding said
01:39 PM Oct 13, 2022
I tried to raise this a few years back but my post was deleted.
Sooner or later a time limitation, surely, must be imposed on such claims? I know this is a problem with child abuse cases but we cannot go on like this forever - ask Cardinal Pell....
Rob Driver said
02:00 PM Oct 13, 2022
I knew a couple who divorced and both re married,
The man married a woman with a child who was a girl of around the age of 12 to 13.
This child resented the fact that her family had split and remarried and was a handful most of the time due to bad behaviour. The man who was now the stepdad to this girl had two daughters of similar ages of his own who had stayed living with their mother, his ex wife.
This girl stepchild when she was 15 reported to her mother that she had been interfered with sexually by her stepfather.
Subsequently the procedure From there in, was the accusations, the arguments, the court case and the findings. Needless to say the life and career of the man was completely destroyed. He lost his equipment and his livelihood as well as valuable contracts which had been serviced for years by his family in the business. He lost the respect of many in the community.
He was sentenced to gaol for a period which was probably the beginning of the end.
The truth eventually came out whereby the entire incident was fabricated by the step child to separate the mother from the new marriage.
Oh, well that worked for the girl but unfortunately it wasnt true and the entire story was a fabrication.
This was revealed when another adult overheard the girl in conversation boasting to others about what she had done.
With qualified interrogation she admitted what she had done and the decision from the court was eventually reversed. We might all breath a sigh of relief but there was no relief for the stepfather. His very existence was ruined.
There was no penalty to the child at all it was just put down as a childish prank. Where are the courts when you do need them.
During the court case the mans defence team wanted the girl assessed by qualified people but the testimony of a social worker was what they based the verdict on.
The social workers testimony overruled even statements from the mans ex wife and children and from his family friends and work colleagues.
Last I heard he had turned to alcohol and his life was really on the skids.
So my theory is that if the so called crime is not reported immediately the so called act has been committed then there should remain extreme doubts about the entire situation. The female is not always correct and to be given the benefit of the doubt after such a long period of time is doubtful as to the truth as the situation can be easily manipulated to suit a revised situation. When we see a girl standing shamedly in a white dress with support of politicians all around her that stand to be not seen to be compliant with the girl and the boy having sex in a parliamentary office and in front of a full compliment of media then we dont need to wonder why the support exists within the parliament.
It should have been directed that unless any politician or staff were there and witnessed any anomaly then anything that was provided by them should be disregarded.
It has been reported that there were witnesses to the incident.
In any case and whatever the outcome the boys life and career is ruined and if it is ruined because of the sex act turning from a drunken orgy into something that was connived where the girl was forced to participate in sex in a parliamentary office then I still find it hard to believe.
They reportedly caught a cab back to parliament. They were seen to arrive. The girl was seen to remain in the office in a condition where it was assumed she was inebriated. She was questioned by a parliamentary member at that time who I believe has since passed away.
Once again the media is standing in the way of justice.
I pity the guy for he wont win even if it is found that there is no case to answer apart from maybe a joint charge of trespassing with the girl. Even this could be difficult as they were given access to rhe office by responsible staff.
I dont think that either of them went to that office that night to watch the late movie and drink the Scotch that might have been hidden in the bottom drawer.
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Thursday 13th of October 2022 02:02:35 PM
Greg 1 said
03:53 PM Oct 13, 2022
In my opinion, no one should be tried by media, which is exactly what happened in this case.
I do not believe that you could find a jury of individuals who had not formed an opinion one way or another on this case. It is impossible to say that this man will receive a fair trial. He cannot possibly do so.
If this young lady truly was sexually assaulted, then the proper forum to have that heard is in a courtroom not in every tabloid and news room across the country. And if her allegations are true then the perpetrator deserves what he gets.
But I fear that justice will not be done here or certainly not perceived to be done regardless of the outcome.
The media have a great deal to answer for I am afraid.
DMaxer said
11:33 AM Oct 16, 2022
Hi Gundog. The reason a media blackout is imposed is because a witness is under cross examination. It does not matter if the witness is the complainant or any other witness. If the testimony of the interposed witness is made public prior to the original witness finalising his or her evidence, then all evidence given upon return to the witness box is tainted as the witness has had the opportunity to hear another's version. This is the reason why all witnesses are not allowed to sit in the court room until they have themselves given evidence.
One thing that usually happens and has for the last fifteen years or so depending on which State you are in, is that the complainant (alleged victim) usually has their evidence pre recorded. The complainant is placed in a surrounding room, with a support person if required, and the prosecution and defence counsel are in the actual court room. the evidence in chief is led and then cross examination takes place followed by re examination if required. The complainant appears on a monitor in the court room and the whole proceedings are video recorded. If any editing is ordered by the trial judge this then takes place by the prosecution. This usually takes place well before the actual trial date and then the recorded evidence is then played to the jury at the trial. This also allows for the possibility of any mistrial. The recording can then be shown again at the new trial without the need for the complainant to go through the whole proceedings a second or more time. The identity of the complainant is never revealed. In cases where the complainant has made a public comment or accusation there is no need to protect the identity as it is already disclosed by the complainant.
In general, some people get confused about the process in historical matters. It is not just a matter of someone making allegations about an event that happened long in the past and then all of a sudden someone is charged and placed on trial. Any allegation needs corroborating evidence before a charge is laid otherwise it fails at the first hurdle. In sexual assault cases, one of the significant factors is whether the complainant made any complaint to someone who they would be assumed to have confided in. It may be a friend, family member or religious advisor, anyone. The fact that the police have not been contacted for some period of time is completely irrelevant. Victims may feel shame, anger or the belief that no one will believe them. Evidence of reporting a crime to police is usually inadmissible in most trials as it can be deemed as prejudicial. The fact that you report to the police can be bolstering, that is, it must have happened because I told the police it did. It is different in sexual assault allegations as it can form part of recent complaint.
To get a matter to trial, not only do the police need corroboration, it needs to go before a lower court and an order from the presiding magistrate that after reading the brief and or hearing any testimony, the magistrate is convinced that there is sufficient evidence to put someone on trial in a superior court. The next step is for the prosecution to file an indictment with a declaration that the prosecution has determined there is sufficient evidence to expect a conviction.
When and if the matter gets to trial, all the witnesses who have made statements and form part of the brief are subpoenaed to attend. It is a matter for the prosecution which ones they choose to call and in what order. All witnesses, whether they aid or otherwise the prosecution case are called. If the prosecution decides not to call a witness because they are either superfluous or are not a witness of truth (in their view) then those witnesses are made available for the defence to call in their case. These witnesses can then be cross examined by the prosecution.
At the commencement of the trial and during and at the end, the presiding judge will outline to the jury that the only evidence they consider is what has been stated in the trial. They are left in no doubt that what has been written in the media or discussed on the airwaves is of no consequence. If the evidence is weak the judge will direct accordingly. the judge gives full warnings on what can be considered and what cannot.
I agree that in a some cases the media and others who should know better have interfered but this is cured by the judicial directions. If it is not, the matter is then overturned on appeal.
Hope that long winded explanation helps.
Sorry Mike, a Statute of Limitations will never be instituted in these matters or any other serious offending. The longer the time between the alleged offence and the complaint the less chance that it would even result in a charge let alone a trial. It would go no where without corroboration of the complainant's allegation.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Sunday 16th of October 2022 11:36:24 AM
Mike Harding said
11:52 AM Oct 16, 2022
DMaxer wrote:
[Lots snipped]
It is not just a matter of someone making allegations about an event that happened long in the past and then all of a sudden someone is charged and placed on trial. Any allegation needs corroborating evidence before a charge is laid otherwise it fails at the first hurdle.
the judge gives full warnings on what can be considered and what cannot.
I agree that in a some cases the media and others who should know better have interfered but this is cured by the judicial directions. If it is not, the matter is then overturned on appeal.
Sorry Mike, a Statute of Limitations will never be instituted in these matters or any other serious offending. The longer the time between the alleged offence and the complaint the less chance that it would even result in a charge let alone a trial. It would go no where without corroboration of the complainant's allegation.
It seems to me Dmaxer the charge and conviction of Cardinal George Pell clearly highlighted that the system often does not work as intended.
DMaxer said
01:14 PM Oct 16, 2022
There was nothing wrong with the system Mike. The HC ruled that it was open to the jury to have entertained a doubt and they didn't. The fact that the allegation was made years later was not the reason.
Historical allegations are extremely difficult to prove. Spare a thought for the victims and what they have either gone through or are still going through. If someone is acquitted it is the end of the matter for them. I just don't accept that the vast majority of people make up stories for no other reason than to get someone into trouble. I think the ones that speak out are very brave. But that is just my view.
Mike Harding said
01:39 PM Oct 16, 2022
DMaxer wrote:
>If someone is acquitted it is the end of the matter for them.
Apart from probably suffering physical and mental stress from the pressure, not to mention perhaps having to sell their house to pay legal bills and their life being shattered and always being known as the molester who "got off". As you well know Dmaxer being charged with such a crime is much more than a bit of an inconvenient blip in one's life.
>I just don't accept that the vast majority of people make up stories for no other reason than to get someone into trouble.
It's very hard to judge; people do some very strange things for some very strange reasons, as an example I offer you Carl Beech and his supporters, the London Metropolitan Police Force:
As I have said before Mike, it is not just a simple process of making an allegation and the accused then being brought before a jury. I think the actual rate of a matter progressing that far is under 5%. They don't get that far without a prima facie case being established.
Over the years many women, including plenty in my chosen profession, have told me about things that happened to them that they were not prepared to report. The majority of these people told me the reason was that they were not prepared to undergo the disbelief and questioning of others. People who commit these crimes are extremely good at selecting the appropriate victim.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Sunday 16th of October 2022 01:55:34 PM
Mike Harding said
02:18 PM Oct 16, 2022
And a previous partner use to say to me Dmaxer that she was the only woman she knew who hadn't been raped....
DMaxer said
12:13 PM Oct 17, 2022
One thing that I find extremely annoying is the moronic coverage of court proceedings by the dunderheads on MSM.
I wish someone would inform these cretins that in British, Australian and in fact all courts in the Commonwealth, no one, and I mean no one "takes the stand" or "returns to the stand". That is an American terminology that these imbeciles cannot grasp. In all Courts of the Commonwealth it is a witness box. No one stands, you are seated in an area.
The other tripe is seeing a photograph of a gavel when referring to court proceedings. These are used in some American courts but nowhere in Commonwealth Courts.
Another idiot I saw reporting last week had a Supreme Court trial being conducted before a Magistrate. These fools should be shot out of a cannon straight into the sun.
Mike Harding said
01:00 PM Oct 17, 2022
DMaxer wrote:
I wish someone would inform these cretins that in British, Australian and in fact all courts in the Commonwealth, no one, and I mean no one "takes the stand" or "returns to the stand". That is an American terminology that these imbeciles cannot grasp. In all Courts of the Commonwealth it is a witness box. No one stands, you are seated in an area.
This has been driving me crazy for some time!
It has become so ubiquitous in the media that, a few weeks past, I actually had to check to make sure I hadn't missed some curious legal change of name from "witness box" to "stand".
I think from now on I'm going to give the ABC grief whenever some reporter whose education and journalism qualifications were gained via Hollywood and American TV uses the word "stand"!
DMaxer said
02:30 PM Oct 17, 2022
Even better today. We now hear from the same airhead that the trial will be "wrapping up". Trials don't "wrap up", sounds like a Christmas present or a recording session.
Greg 1 said
01:49 AM Oct 18, 2022
I understand what DMaxer is saying, but regardless what directions a judge might give regarding what the jury can or cannot consider, once certain opinions are firmed in a person's mind, it is very hard fir them to truly be subjective.
In this particular case, because of the absolute media circus that has occurred, I really don't believe that the members of the jury had not already formed an opinion one way or another.
Some may well change that opinion once confronted with the actual evidence, but many may well not.
Even the young lady in this case, may well be portrayed differently during the trial to what the media has reported. That she chose to blow this up in the media prior to taking it to the police and finally to court is reprehensible and should be looked upon sternly by the law.
Everyone is entitled to a fair trial whether they are proven guilty or not, and in this case I doubt that will happen.
When there is so much media attention, in my opinion it should become a trial by judge only.
DMaxer said
06:12 AM Oct 18, 2022
Perhaps she didnt have any confidence in the police being allowed to do their job Greg.
DMaxer said
06:26 AM Oct 18, 2022
The good senator was not aware that you werent allowed to find out what someone else had said in evidence, nor that you werent allowed to text lawyers with suggestions for cross examination or that your boyfriend shouldnt sit in the back of the court taking notes to assist you in your evidence.
Just unbelievable.
peter67 said
09:03 AM Oct 18, 2022
It was the butler, in the library, with a candle stick.
First off the actual names will not be mentioned.
There is a court case occurring where at the commencement of the second week the accuser who was supposed to continue with cross examination on Monday was unavailable, but the case is continuing in the person's absence after a second day
Why would a case continue without the accuser present, the judge has a media on the reason for not attending. Would it not be prudent to say that person is ill.
But the minute you use a media blackout, on all preceding because of the absence of the accuser and the trial continues sounds suss to me.
Wild speculation could sujest conspiracy theories ie needing coaching to contend with the cross examination, etc or is the person have mental health problems with the pressure of giving evidence..
Should not the trial be suspended.
Very strange to me whats being hidden.
Indeed. And there are far too many of those currently and they're ruining people's lives.
Edit: typo.
-- Edited by Mike Harding on Wednesday 12th of October 2022 09:44:13 AM
From what we here on the media her absence was after statements given by security and a cleaner.
As was originally reported it may be the case that their statements dont fit her agenda.
It would be in fact absolutely horrid if a young mans life was ruined by the judgement being skewed by the media and the view of some politicians.
Just let the justice be fair in this country.
In every criminal case the alleged victim is a witness, not a party. In every criminal case the alleged victim is free to go after giving evidence but may be recalled by leave. It is not unusual for witnesses to be unavailable during evidence in chief, cross examination or re examination. When this happens the trial proceeds with another witness and when the original witness is then available, that witness proceeds under their original oath or affirmation.
Perhaps it might be a good idea to leave these procedures in the hands of people that are competent and qualified to administer them. In the interim, you can give your biased views based on whatever tripe you have read in the MSM or heard on your favourite right wing television station.
If you are all confused and bored why not google the Doctrine of Recent Complaint. Perhaps you might learn something but I doubt it.
I was hoping you would pop up on this one, so please explain WHY because the alleged victim is unavailable to proceed with cross examination by the defence legal representatives. A media blackout is imposed to the nature of the unavailability of the witness, and all evidence from other witnesses, untill the return of the alleged victim.
In effect if the alleged victim absence is prolonged the media blackout will remain how that fair, because the alleged victim used the media to promote a narrative against the alleged offender
How many times is a case won or lost on a "technicality" rather than based on the "reasonable person" test?
I have no idea what case you are talking about.
I believe the whole issue of sexual abuse needs a total revamp. A lot of victims are so traumatised that they won't pursue a legal claim. On the other side i have 4 mates charged with historical sexual abuuse, 40 years after supposed event. All were summed up by judge in direction to jury that it is a finacial claim or a figmant of girls imagination. Fter $300,000 plus bing spent on lawyers etc to be found not guilty, but all lost their jobs despite verdict.
Surely there could be a way these hearings could be confidential delt with by a couple of mmagistrates /judges without any public disclosure of those involved, instad of just the males name is made public as is now.
Just my two bobs worth
Neil
I tried to raise this a few years back but my post was deleted.
Sooner or later a time limitation, surely, must be imposed on such claims? I know this is a problem with child abuse cases but we cannot go on like this forever - ask Cardinal Pell....
I knew a couple who divorced and both re married,
The man married a woman with a child who was a girl of around the age of 12 to 13.
This child resented the fact that her family had split and remarried and was a handful most of the time due to bad behaviour.
The man who was now the stepdad to this girl had two daughters of similar ages of his own who had stayed living with their mother, his ex wife.
This girl stepchild when she was 15 reported to her mother that she had been interfered with sexually by her stepfather.
Subsequently the procedure From there in, was the accusations, the arguments, the court case and the findings.
Needless to say the life and career of the man was completely destroyed. He lost his equipment and his livelihood as well as valuable contracts which had been serviced for years by his family in the business. He lost the respect of many in the community.
He was sentenced to gaol for a period which was probably the beginning of the end.
The truth eventually came out whereby the entire incident was fabricated by the step child to separate the mother from the new marriage.
Oh, well that worked for the girl but unfortunately it wasnt true and the entire story was a fabrication.
This was revealed when another adult overheard the girl in conversation boasting to others about what she had done.
With qualified interrogation she admitted what she had done and the decision from the court was eventually reversed.
We might all breath a sigh of relief but there was no relief for the stepfather. His very existence was ruined.
There was no penalty to the child at all it was just put down as a childish prank. Where are the courts when you do need them.
During the court case the mans defence team wanted the girl assessed by qualified people but the testimony of a social worker was what they based the verdict on.
The social workers testimony overruled even statements from the mans ex wife and children and from his family friends and work colleagues.
Last I heard he had turned to alcohol and his life was really on the skids.
So my theory is that if the so called crime is not reported immediately the so called act has been committed then there should remain extreme doubts about the entire situation.
The female is not always correct and to be given the benefit of the doubt after such a long period of time is doubtful as to the truth as the situation can be easily manipulated to suit a revised situation.
When we see a girl standing shamedly in a white dress with support of politicians all around her that stand to be not seen to be compliant with the girl and the boy having sex in a parliamentary office and in front of a full compliment of media then we dont need to wonder why the support exists within the parliament.
It should have been directed that unless any politician or staff were there and witnessed any anomaly then anything that was provided by them should be disregarded.
It has been reported that there were witnesses to the incident.
In any case and whatever the outcome the boys life and career is ruined and if it is ruined because of the sex act turning from a drunken orgy into something that was connived where the girl was forced to participate in sex in a parliamentary office then I still find it hard to believe.
They reportedly caught a cab back to parliament. They were seen to arrive. The girl was seen to remain in the office in a condition where it was assumed she was inebriated.
She was questioned by a parliamentary member at that time who I believe has since passed away.
Once again the media is standing in the way of justice.
I pity the guy for he wont win even if it is found that there is no case to answer apart from maybe a joint charge of trespassing with the girl. Even this could be difficult as they were given access to rhe office by responsible staff.
I dont think that either of them went to that office that night to watch the late movie and drink the Scotch that might have been hidden in the bottom drawer.
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Thursday 13th of October 2022 02:02:35 PM
I do not believe that you could find a jury of individuals who had not formed an opinion one way or another on this case. It is impossible to say that this man will receive a fair trial. He cannot possibly do so.
If this young lady truly was sexually assaulted, then the proper forum to have that heard is in a courtroom not in every tabloid and news room across the country. And if her allegations are true then the perpetrator deserves what he gets.
But I fear that justice will not be done here or certainly not perceived to be done regardless of the outcome.
The media have a great deal to answer for I am afraid.
Hi Gundog. The reason a media blackout is imposed is because a witness is under cross examination. It does not matter if the witness is the complainant or any other witness. If the testimony of the interposed witness is made public prior to the original witness finalising his or her evidence, then all evidence given upon return to the witness box is tainted as the witness has had the opportunity to hear another's version. This is the reason why all witnesses are not allowed to sit in the court room until they have themselves given evidence.
One thing that usually happens and has for the last fifteen years or so depending on which State you are in, is that the complainant (alleged victim) usually has their evidence pre recorded. The complainant is placed in a surrounding room, with a support person if required, and the prosecution and defence counsel are in the actual court room. the evidence in chief is led and then cross examination takes place followed by re examination if required. The complainant appears on a monitor in the court room and the whole proceedings are video recorded. If any editing is ordered by the trial judge this then takes place by the prosecution. This usually takes place well before the actual trial date and then the recorded evidence is then played to the jury at the trial. This also allows for the possibility of any mistrial. The recording can then be shown again at the new trial without the need for the complainant to go through the whole proceedings a second or more time. The identity of the complainant is never revealed. In cases where the complainant has made a public comment or accusation there is no need to protect the identity as it is already disclosed by the complainant.
In general, some people get confused about the process in historical matters. It is not just a matter of someone making allegations about an event that happened long in the past and then all of a sudden someone is charged and placed on trial. Any allegation needs corroborating evidence before a charge is laid otherwise it fails at the first hurdle. In sexual assault cases, one of the significant factors is whether the complainant made any complaint to someone who they would be assumed to have confided in. It may be a friend, family member or religious advisor, anyone. The fact that the police have not been contacted for some period of time is completely irrelevant. Victims may feel shame, anger or the belief that no one will believe them. Evidence of reporting a crime to police is usually inadmissible in most trials as it can be deemed as prejudicial. The fact that you report to the police can be bolstering, that is, it must have happened because I told the police it did. It is different in sexual assault allegations as it can form part of recent complaint.
To get a matter to trial, not only do the police need corroboration, it needs to go before a lower court and an order from the presiding magistrate that after reading the brief and or hearing any testimony, the magistrate is convinced that there is sufficient evidence to put someone on trial in a superior court. The next step is for the prosecution to file an indictment with a declaration that the prosecution has determined there is sufficient evidence to expect a conviction.
When and if the matter gets to trial, all the witnesses who have made statements and form part of the brief are subpoenaed to attend. It is a matter for the prosecution which ones they choose to call and in what order. All witnesses, whether they aid or otherwise the prosecution case are called. If the prosecution decides not to call a witness because they are either superfluous or are not a witness of truth (in their view) then those witnesses are made available for the defence to call in their case. These witnesses can then be cross examined by the prosecution.
At the commencement of the trial and during and at the end, the presiding judge will outline to the jury that the only evidence they consider is what has been stated in the trial. They are left in no doubt that what has been written in the media or discussed on the airwaves is of no consequence. If the evidence is weak the judge will direct accordingly. the judge gives full warnings on what can be considered and what cannot.
I agree that in a some cases the media and others who should know better have interfered but this is cured by the judicial directions. If it is not, the matter is then overturned on appeal.
Hope that long winded explanation helps.
Sorry Mike, a Statute of Limitations will never be instituted in these matters or any other serious offending. The longer the time between the alleged offence and the complaint the less chance that it would even result in a charge let alone a trial. It would go no where without corroboration of the complainant's allegation.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Sunday 16th of October 2022 11:36:24 AM
It seems to me Dmaxer the charge and conviction of Cardinal George Pell clearly highlighted that the system often does not work as intended.
There was nothing wrong with the system Mike. The HC ruled that it was open to the jury to have entertained a doubt and they didn't. The fact that the allegation was made years later was not the reason.
Historical allegations are extremely difficult to prove. Spare a thought for the victims and what they have either gone through or are still going through. If someone is acquitted it is the end of the matter for them. I just don't accept that the vast majority of people make up stories for no other reason than to get someone into trouble. I think the ones that speak out are very brave. But that is just my view.
As I have said before Mike, it is not just a simple process of making an allegation and the accused then being brought before a jury. I think the actual rate of a matter progressing that far is under 5%. They don't get that far without a prima facie case being established.
Over the years many women, including plenty in my chosen profession, have told me about things that happened to them that they were not prepared to report. The majority of these people told me the reason was that they were not prepared to undergo the disbelief and questioning of others. People who commit these crimes are extremely good at selecting the appropriate victim.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Sunday 16th of October 2022 01:55:34 PM
And a previous partner use to say to me Dmaxer that she was the only woman she knew who hadn't been raped....
One thing that I find extremely annoying is the moronic coverage of court proceedings by the dunderheads on MSM.
I wish someone would inform these cretins that in British, Australian and in fact all courts in the Commonwealth, no one, and I mean no one "takes the stand" or "returns to the stand". That is an American terminology that these imbeciles cannot grasp. In all Courts of the Commonwealth it is a witness box. No one stands, you are seated in an area.
The other tripe is seeing a photograph of a gavel when referring to court proceedings. These are used in some American courts but nowhere in Commonwealth Courts.
Another idiot I saw reporting last week had a Supreme Court trial being conducted before a Magistrate. These fools should be shot out of a cannon straight into the sun.
This has been driving me crazy for some time!
It has become so ubiquitous in the media that, a few weeks past, I actually had to check to make sure I hadn't missed some curious legal change of name from "witness box" to "stand".
I think from now on I'm going to give the ABC grief whenever some reporter whose education and journalism qualifications were gained via Hollywood and American TV uses the word "stand"!
Even better today. We now hear from the same airhead that the trial will be "wrapping up". Trials don't "wrap up", sounds like a Christmas present or a recording session.
In this particular case, because of the absolute media circus that has occurred, I really don't believe that the members of the jury had not already formed an opinion one way or another.
Some may well change that opinion once confronted with the actual evidence, but many may well not.
Even the young lady in this case, may well be portrayed differently during the trial to what the media has reported. That she chose to blow this up in the media prior to taking it to the police and finally to court is reprehensible and should be looked upon sternly by the law.
Everyone is entitled to a fair trial whether they are proven guilty or not, and in this case I doubt that will happen.
When there is so much media attention, in my opinion it should become a trial by judge only.
Can anyone make sense of this judgment?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-19/pauline-hanson-to-pay-brian-burston-over-defamatory-tv-interview/101550488
Na! It was Bill Clinton with a big Havana cigar.