‘Law reform’ is supposed to make the court system fairer for all involved. In practice, though, it’s become glaringly obvious that decades of ‘reform’ by ideologues has made the system shockingly one-sided.
Feminists have long claimed that the court system is stacked against accusers in matters of sex crime. In fact, the opposite now seems to be true. As has been said, many men these days would prefer to be accused of murder than rape.
No doubt it was often unfair that a complainant’s sexual history could be used to discredit their testimony. But when it’s no longer even possible for an accused to point out to the court that their accuser is a proven serial liar, something has gone terribly awry.
The NSW government is facing fresh calls to amend a law criticised by successive judges as unfair after the High Court ruled a man accused of rape would have to face trial without being allowed to tell the jury of the complainant’s history of false sexual assault complaints.
The provision, section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Act, is aimed at protecting rape victims from being cross-examined on their sexual history. However, it has been interpreted by the NSW courts as also preventing any evidence of prior false sexual-assault complaints by victims.
In this case, a man known as Jackmain has been prevented from introducing evidence at his trial of numerous incidents in which the complainant allegedly made false sexual assault claims — a situation the trial judge labelled an “affront to justice”.
Feminists would have us believe that women never lie about rape. This is clearly ridiculous. In fact, rape is probably the single crime most prone to false accusations. In a notorious case in Australia, a former prison officer was thrown behind bars, living in fear for his life for five months, on the word of a “serial liar”. Numerous high-profile cases in the United States have been proven false – yet the falsely accused must still live with the stigma.
To rub salt in the wound, the High Court has essentially told the accused to just suck up a conviction and try again on appeal.
Judges Geoffrey Nettle, Michelle Gordon and James Edelman ruled that Jackmain did not have “sufficient prospects” of successfully convincing the court the section was invalid, or that his prosecution should be permanently stayed. On the question of whether the law had been wrongly interpreted for almost 30 years, the High Court said, essentially, that Jackmain could come back after he was convicted.
Sure. Good luck clearing your name after a conviction like that.
Jackmain’s lawyers had argued their client should not have to face a “charade trial” in which he was “forced to stay mute on the most critical element” of his defence, as this would undermine public confidence in the courts and damage its integrity.
Decades of ‘progress’ and ‘reform’ have led to the situation that, in matters such as this, the most fundamental precepts of our legal system have been turned on their head. Men, today, have to prove their innocence.
If you enjoyed this BFD article please consider sharing it with your friends.
