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.

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.