How soon before a rape accusation becomes an automatic conviction in Australia? Provocative question? Of course: that’s my job, to ask provocative questions. Outlandish and far-fetched? Not so much, given the trajectory of so-called ‘reform’ demands by legal activists.
Especially when you have the most senior political leaders on the left parroting phrases like ‘believe all women’ and ‘believe victims’. The former would have us believe that women never lie, which is as absurd as saying that men never lie, too. Does anyone really think women, alone of the two sexes, never lie?
Ah, but what they mean is, ‘women never lie about rape’. This is also demonstrably untrue. Many famous rape accusations have been exposed as complete lies, whether the completely fabricated Rolling Stone ‘A Rape on Campus’ story, or, to use just one notorious example, the Australian former policeman who was wrongly jailed (and belatedly exonerated) on account of his wife’s lie that he raped and beat her.
So, women do on occasion lie about rape. How often is disputed, but the evidence is that rape is the most common false accusation made in courts. Estimates of false accusations range from four per cent to 25 per cent. Indeed, every failed rape trial – and that’s the majority, the activists themselves tell us – is, ipso facto, a false accusation.
‘Believe victims’ is even worse. Because, until a conviction is decided on, it presupposes the verdict of the court in a way that would never be allowed in any other matter. It’s literally contempt of court. Recall that former Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett was given the legal rounds of the kitchen for saying on television that he was glad they’d caught the killer, when serial murderer Paul Denyer was arrested. Denyer was, fortunately, duly convicted but, as Kennett was chastised, his remarks were prejudicial and could easily have derailed the case.
Rape is an incredibly serious accusation and, as such, barriers to a conviction should be concomitantly high. Instead, activists have seen to it that the barriers have been steadily lowered. If they had their way, they’d be lowered even further, in a manner completely contrary to the principles of Common Law developed over centuries.
Rape complainants would be permitted to give all evidence in a prerecorded hearing, allowed to provide direct feedback on their personal interaction with the justice system, and provided a government-funded lawyer under a radical overhaul of rape provisions proposed by the national legal reform body.
The last is perhaps the least controversial. Although, given what we’ve learned about the undue eagerness of over-zealous government prosecutors to pursue rape cases with little to no hope of conviction, perhaps not.
But in the words of our own High Court, confrontation and the opportunity for cross-examination is of central significance to the common law adversarial system of trial.
Thomas Henry Bingham, Baron Bingham of Cornhill, described as the ‘greatest judge of his generation’, averred that this principle dated back to Roman law and was recognised by such towering legal authorities as William Blackstone and Jeremy Bentham. They asserted that the cross-examination of adverse witnesses [is] ‘the indefeasible right of each party, in all sorts of causes’ and criticised inquisitorial procedures practised on the continent of Europe, where evidence was received under a ‘veil of secrecy’ and the door was left ‘wide open to mendacity, falsehood, and partiality’.
But the ‘progressive’ ambulance chasers of the Australian Law Reform Commission think they know better than these legal titans.
The long-awaited report by the Australian Law Reform Commission into justice responses to sexual violence has also recommended complainants should be authorised to include pictures and drawings in their victim impact statements, and should not have to undergo cross-examination by an unrepresented defendant […]
The 648-page report, tabled in federal parliament on Thursday afternoon, made 64 recommendations to improve outcomes for complainants, including the establishment of a national inquiry into mandatory sentencing provisions.
The hypocrisy of the ALRC is staggering. The ALRC has, after all, steadfastly opposed mandatory sentencing in all other matters.
Evidence suggests that mandatory sentencing increases incarceration, is costly and is not effective as a crime deterrent […] The ALRC recommends that Commonwealth, state and territory governments should repeal sentencing provisions which impose mandatory or presumptive terms of imprisonment upon conviction of an offender.
Well, of course it increases incarceration. That’s kind of the point of mandatory sentencing.
Even when there is no conviction, the ALRC wants a mere accusation, however unreliable, to carry the weight of punishment.
Restorative justice should be made available even if the rape is not reported to police, if it is reported to police but there is insufficient evidence to file charges or if the prosecution was discontinued.
So, I ask again: how long before activists demand that a mere accusation of rape amount to an automatic conviction?
