Bush walker wrote:

---

Wanda, why try and bring race into this discussion. ? White does not come into it.

It is really about a suspected rapist of 4 women getting a fair trial

The color of his victims or the rapist have nothing to do with it

---

You, as well as some of the others, have totally missed my point and quite frankly I can't be bothered trying to explain it.

I feel a  black person and female would more than likely know exactly where I'm coming from.

I'm out of " I Degress", same bunch of wingers who have nothing better to do, still living under a rock in the 19th century

cheers

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.

---

 The jury I was on, one of the places in part of the case very very near the court. The judge said none of us were to look at this area even though we had to walk past it entering & leaving court.

All of us jurors put in an extra effort to purposely blank out this place of interest in the outside world.

From my experience, as much as people say the jury can do there own research, the jury does not. None of us looked at the internet on the subject & also avoided any news on the subject as well.

All I said is that people deserve a fair trial.

Is that really so radical and confrontational as some of the responses to this thread suggest...?

Montie, it doesn't work that way. It is not a situation where a person speaks to the police years after an event and then the person accused is brought before a judge and jury for trial. When a person gives information to the police the police gather evidence and then decide if they sufficient evidence to lay charges. After charges are laid, the matter then comes before a Magistrate in committal proceedings where witnesses can be cross examined and if the Magistrate decides there is a prima facie case, (a case to answer), the accused is ordered to stand trial. During these proceedings, the DPP has a prosecutorial discretion, that is, if they do not think there is strong possibility of a conviction at trial they will file a nolle prosequi, that is, they withdraw the prosecution. It can be reinstated at any time by filing a new indictment.

The fact that a victim does not report the alleged offence to police within a short period of time is of no consequence.  Victims have many reason for not reporting a crime. It can be fear, embarrassment, feeling they won't be believed. In fact, most of the historic charges of child abuse comes years after when the victim reaches adult years. That is why it is so difficult for the prosecution to prove these type of charges. It is the evidence of what occurred either concurrently or shortly  after the alleged offending occurred that determines the strength of the prosecution case.  Until recently, the jury would be directed by the trial judge of the danger of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of a minor.

Given that there is rarely an eye witness to sexual assaults and the fact they may not be reported for some time, the most important evidence is the doctrine of recent complaint. This means that if this offending occurred, did the victim confide in a friend, parent, teacher or trusted person shortly thereafter the act was committed. Although this is not direct evidence of the assault occurring, it is strong prosecutorial evidence that the victim been troubled and spoken to someone. This person does not need to be the police. In cases where there is no recent complaint and no corroborating evidence through medical examinations etc the matter would not proceed past committal, if in fact it even got there. Likewise, just because an alleged victim races to the police station the following day does not in itself prove an act has happened.

The victim does not run the case. The victim is just another prosecution witness. The prosecution conduct the case based on the determination of their senior prosecutors, not the wishes of an alleged victim. The case proceeds or is withdrawn on the prosecutors determination, not the alleged victim's wishes.   It is just a total fallacy that people roll into a police station years after the event and then people are put on trial.

When the trial does proceed, the prosecution has the burden of proof. They have to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The accused does not have to prove his innocence. If the accused gives evidence and his evidence is not shaken by cross examination, the prosecution case will fail, even if the victim is also believed. It is not a question of who one believes, it is whether the prosecution has proven its case beyond reasonable doubt.

I have conducted plenty of jury trials over many years and listened to all the armchair judges with their views on the criminal justice system. Really, I should not have wasted 5 years at university when all I needed was to come onto a caravan forum and be appraised of jurisprudence.

Thank you Boab. I find it totally irresponsible of some of the media who sensationalise these very traumatic events, not only for the alleged victim but also the person who has been accused. They seem to delight in taking sides, either continually referring to the alleged victim by their first name as if they were close friends of us all or alternatively, demonising the alleged victim portraying the alleged victim as some revengeful liar.

The process of getting a matter to trial is lengthy and meticulous. If one believed half of the tripe written in the media one could be forgiven for thinking that anyone can make an unfounded allegation and the next step is a lengthy jury trial. Far from it.

Wanda, you are just another one of those people that want to blame white people for everything that is wrong in this world and when blacks break the law its not their fault because 200yrs ago some of their ancesters were treated poorly IT SHOULD BE THE SAME FOR EVERYONE REGARDLESS OF WHAT RACE YOU ARE

Bush walker wrote:

---

IT SHOULD BE THE SAME FOR EVERYONE REGARDLESS OF WHAT RACE YOU ARE

---

 Can't argue with that really, can you....

Mike Harding wrote:

---

Good thread and generally good comment I thought.

However; I do think a statute of limitations would be good in all but the worst cases, murder, torture and such.

If a victim has gone (say) 10 years since the offence I am unconvinced that for most the stress of a trial would be helpful to them even if the accused is convicted and I seriously doubt the capability of people to clearly recall events clear after so many years - I have trouble remembering what I was doing six months past let alone 10 years.

---

 Perhaps for some cases. But what about sexual abuse of children. They may not even be adults after 10 years.

I think you misunderstand the legal process Dorian. Before anyone is charged with any offence there has to be evidence that is supported. A charge based on one person's allegation unsupported by any other relevant evidence would not even make it to the committal stage let alone a trial. More than likely an order for costs would also be made against the police.

If a person is charged in the majority of cases their legal representation is covered by the legal aid schemes of each state. Sometimes this representation is undertaken in house by the legal aid body but in the majority of cases it is briefed out to private firms and the private bar who are paid a scale rate. This grant of aid is based on the assets and income of the accused and the merits of the case. If the accused is granted legal aid the accused makes a one off payment of about $150.

You seem obsessed with lawyers and their income. Very few make the income that you seem to think they do. It is a very hard slog with long hours and high overheads, I can assure you. If you feel it is so easy then just do a lazy five years at your local university followed by a few years as an employee working long hours then shell out about $15-$20K a year for professional indemnity insurance and you will be on your way to millions. Real easy, give it a go.

You agreed on that settlement Montie, so why whinge. You could have gone to trial and if successful you would have been awarded costs. Just because you settle a case does not mean that all the hours the legal people put in should be disregarded and they not be reimbursed.

If it was all so easy why didn't you represent yourself. You seem to know everything. You would also have signed a costs agreement at the time you first instructed your lawyers so you would have been aware of the costs as they accrued. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good whinge.

You are never "along for the ride" when you are listed as a second defendant or respondent. You are there because it is alleged you are either equally or proportionately liable. If the manufacturer went broke the second respondent is right in the frame. Matters don't settle because everyone is bored. Commercial decisions are made with the knowledge of worst case scenarios, corporations just don't pay out to be charitable.

If people are unhappy with a legal bill it is assessed by the Registrar. Blatant overcharging results in practitioners being disciplined o0r struck off.

Got any other good stories you would like me to shine a factual light on, old mate?

-- Edited by DMaxer on Thursday 25th of February 2021 08:32:59 AM

The person who is paying thinks so Dorian. I don't want to comment on a specific matter that has not eventuated Dorian. Why don't you PM Montie, he is a kindred spirit to the cause.

A senator is paid approximately $200k Dorian. A staffer would be lucky to earn a quarter of that. 

The cost of litigation is exorbitant in Australia denying many people their right to pursue justice. Not many people can afford to pay $500 per hour to a local solicitor much less $1000 per hour for the big wig on the 25th floor of the inner city office appartment. And we haven't even touched on what a barrister might cost.

Fortunately for the consumer relief under the ACA can be obtained through the various Tribunals in the states where solicitors are not allowed unless by special permission. Unless your in Queensland where the claim limit is capped at $100,000 in QCat.

If $500 per hour is the going rate for a litigation solicitor that's ok,it's exorbitant but that's what you have to pay, but please don't cry poor.

Tony Bev wrote:

---

The original question was
Shall we bother with a trial or just hang him now?

It is early days yet

But... In my opinion

He may have already hung himself

Four females, accusing the same male, of inappropriate behaviour

And now some leaders of the country, being asked questions, and probably looking for a scapegoat

---

 "Four females accusing the same male of inappropriate behaviour" you say! And once they get a sniff of money,there could be more jump onto the band wagon? What is of concern is that it has taken  these women 2 years to realise they'd been raped,and to decide to make a complaint. Surely they should've made a formal complaint when the memory was fresh,and they could've been physically examined? It appears that this man now is guilty until proven innocent. Luckily nobody had been drinking,so at least their memories will be clear,won't they? Cheers