Number37
Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
- Oct 5, 2013
- 22,294
- 24,321
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Oh, now I get it!
You've completely got no concept of due process!! Makes sense now...
There was an alleged rape in the office.
The correct due process was followed internally and then externally through the AFP. Then they might like to investigate and give the alleged perpetrator a chance to respond.
It is not part of the process for the Chief of Staff, Minister, the Prime Minister, God, or anyone else to announce this alleged rape to the world at this point.
Going to the media before the police is disruptuve to an investigation and completely unacceptable. And this goes for the both the government and alleged victims.
Not to the extent of the false allegations, no.
But the government coming forward to announce a crime while a criminal investigation had barely started, would put undue pressure on the investigators.
Moller, who investigated the case after Higgins the second time around, said he was heavily pressured from every angle, including in the legal fraternity. That's disgusting!
If Higgins doesn't drop the charges in 2019, which she did all by herself, and if the AFP found enough evidence to proceed with a charge against Lehrmann, then everybody in Australia would have known about it. In the fullness of time and after due process.
But again, the government can't announce things through the media first, to not interfere with the investigation, but to also allow the alleged victim their right not to proceed.
Again, you're putting the cart before the horse; the government should not be disclosing the alleged rape to the media.
They were responsible for disclosing it to the AFP, which they did.
The Minister and Brown (and others) weren't falsely accused of a cover-up because the rape allegation wasn't publicly announced; they were falsely accused of a cover-up by Higgins and Sharaz because of misremembering, embellishment of smaller things over time, being influenced by each other, or even intentionally lying. Only they can disseminate that.
We're in agreement that the criminal trial was compromised. So was Justice Lee.
But you differ in Lee and myself about the causation of the compromised trial. It was the false allegations:
"1097 The publication of accusations of corrupt conduct in putting up roadblocks and forcing a rape victim to choose between her career and justice won the Project team, like Ms Maiden, a glittering prize; but when the accusation is examined properly, it was supposition without reasonable foundation in verifiable fact; its dissemination caused a brume of confusion, and did much collateral damage – including to the fair and orderly progress of the underlying allegation of sexual assault through the criminal justice system."
LOL.
Once again you have shown your true colours.
The trial was aborted because of juror misconduct.
A juror in that trial was found to be in possession of material that was not presented as evidence.
Here you are pretending that accusations of corrupt conduct are the reason that the trial was aborted.
Worse than that you are pretending that the words of Justice Lee are that the criminal trial was aborted because of accusations of corrupt conduct.
How does the PM disclosing that a person alleges they were raped in a Minister's office undermine due process?
Does it mean that the police can no longer investigate? No.
Does it mean that the police can no longer collect evidence? No.
Does it mean that the DPP cannot assess any evidence presented to determine whether to progress further? No.
Does it mean that the accused isn't afforded a presumption of innocence? No.
Does it mean that the accused isn't allowed legal representation to contest the allegation in court? No.