The rabbi
Brownlow Medallist
- May 13, 2007
- 13,314
- 16,957
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- St.Albans (Geelong Football League)
No they are not. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the difference matters.Nobody bar those involved will ever know, either way.
Sexual assault trials are extremely difficult with a historically low conviction rate, because the issue isn't proving that sex happened - it's proving a lack of consent.
People aren't proven innocent - they are declared not guilty, and the difference matters. He now has to - and should rightly be - treated as innocent, but that is different to declaring that nothing was done wrong, and by consequence, the alleged victim must have been lying.
https://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/principles/presumption-of-innocence/The presumption of Innocence is a principle that states the prosecution must prove guilt, and the accused is considered innocent until proven otherwise.
The presumption of innocence ensures individuals will be punished by a court, only in accordance with the law. Until a person is found guilty, they are known as the ‘accused’. An accused can be held on remand (in prison) while awaiting trial, but even if they are denied bail, they are considered innocent until proven otherwise.
The onus of proof of the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution. The prosecution must prove every element of the offence, rather than the burden shifting to the accused to prove their innocence. The standard of proof in criminal trials is beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must satisfy this high standard before a person can be found guilty. In criminal trials, judges or juries decide whether the prosecution has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Last edited:





