Prior false rape accusations are not-admissable as evidence

[Vetalia]

Man, it's a good thing being falsely accused of rape never has any negative consequences for the victim, otherwise we might have a problem. I would think, though, you might be able to enter them as evidence indirectly without actually touching on the specific cases?

[Atheris]

That's home-grown pure-bread whole-wheat fucking bullshit. Words can not describe how angry I am.

Parliamentary speeches "make it clear that the purpose of the statutory prohibition is to prevent embarrassing and humiliating cross-examination about past sexual activities which it was believed was a deterrent in reporting sexual offences"

Oh that's fucking bullshit. All of this is FUCKING BULLSHIT.

In this case, a man whose name cannot be reported for legal reasons is standing trial on charges of assault and sexual assault of his former partner in 2014.

His defence team sought to have admitted in court evidence of 12 prior false sexual assault complaints said to have been made by the complainant, most of which were made more than a decade earlier in 2001 and 2002 when the complainant was about 14.

This man seemingly did nothing wrong and they're letting a serial liar and someone who lied about rape and sexual abuse in the past get away with it?! That's horseshit. I expected better, Australia.

[Vetalia]

That's home-grown pure-bread whole-wheat fucking bullshit. Words can not describe how angry I am.

Parliamentary speeches "make it clear that the purpose of the statutory prohibition is to prevent embarrassing and humiliating cross-examination about past sexual activities which it was believed was a deterrent in reporting sexual offences"

Oh that's fucking bullshit. All of this is FUCKING BULLSHIT.

In this case, a man whose name cannot be reported for legal reasons is standing trial on charges of assault and sexual assault of his former partner in 2014.

His defence team sought to have admitted in court evidence of 12 prior false sexual assault complaints said to have been made by the complainant, most of which were made more than a decade earlier in 2001 and 2002 when the complainant was about 14.

This man seemingly did nothing wrong and they're letting a serial liar and someone who lied about rape and sexual abuse in the past get away with it?! That's horseshit. I expected better, Australia.

On the upside, this is another nail in the coffin of the "believe all women" horseshit from the past couple of years. That being said, this time the man in question needs to get a pair and fight back.

[Atheris]

That's home-grown pure-bread whole-wheat fucking bullshit. Words can not describe how angry I am.



Oh that's fucking bullshit. All of this is FUCKING BULLSHIT.



This man seemingly did nothing wrong and they're letting a serial liar and someone who lied about rape and sexual abuse in the past get away with it?! That's horseshit. I expected better, Australia.

On the upside, this is another nail in the coffin of "believe all women".

I don't give a flying fuck about the politics behind it. My issue isn't that it's another nail in the coffin of believe all women or that it's hurting #MeToo. I could give two shits about them. This directly contradicts what I stand for and I absolutely find it abhorrent.

[Vetalia]

I don't give a flying fuck about the politics behind it. My issue isn't that it's another nail in the coffin of believe all women or that it's hurting #MeToo. I could give two shits about them. This directly contradicts what I stand for and I absolutely find it abhorrent.

Then take action. This wouldn't happen in the States, it's a failure of the common law system in Australia. Kavanaugh went through this horseshit and thank God he survived and is a SCOTUS.

[Atheris]

I don't give a flying fuck about the politics behind it. My issue isn't that it's another nail in the coffin of believe all women or that it's hurting #MeToo. I could give two shits about them. This directly contradicts what I stand for and I absolutely find it abhorrent.

Then take action. This wouldn't happen in the States, it's a failure of the common law system in Australia.

I can't take action! I don't live in Australia! This is what upsets me the most! Australia is rolling back basic fucking human decency and I can't do anything about it!

[Vetalia]

Then take action. This wouldn't happen in the States, it's a failure of the common law system in Australia.

I can't take action! I don't live in Australia! This is what upsets me the most! Australia is rolling back basic fucking human decency and I can't do anything about it!

Things fall apart, the center does not hold.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

That's home-grown pure-bread whole-wheat fucking bullshit. Words can not describe how angry I am.

Parliamentary speeches "make it clear that the purpose of the statutory prohibition is to prevent embarrassing and humiliating cross-examination about past sexual activities which it was believed was a deterrent in reporting sexual offences"

Oh that's fucking bullshit. All of this is FUCKING BULLSHIT.

In this case, a man whose name cannot be reported for legal reasons is standing trial on charges of assault and sexual assault of his former partner in 2014.

His defence team sought to have admitted in court evidence of 12 prior false sexual assault complaints said to have been made by the complainant, most of which were made more than a decade earlier in 2001 and 2002 when the complainant was about 14.

This man seemingly did nothing wrong and they're letting a serial liar and someone who lied about rape and sexual abuse in the past get away with it?! That's horseshit. I expected better, Australia.

We don't hold people responsible for what they did when they were 14.

You seem to expect of Australia the standard of justice which applied when we were a penal colony. But we've progressed since then, following Britain more than the US, for which I am very grateful.

[Atheris]

That's home-grown pure-bread whole-wheat fucking bullshit. Words can not describe how angry I am.



Oh that's fucking bullshit. All of this is FUCKING BULLSHIT.



This man seemingly did nothing wrong and they're letting a serial liar and someone who lied about rape and sexual abuse in the past get away with it?! That's horseshit. I expected better, Australia.

We don't hold people responsible for what they did when they were 14.

You seem to expect of Australia the standard of justice which applied when we were a penal colony. But we've progressed since then, following Britain more than the US, for which I am very grateful.

She falsely accused multiple men of rape. I don't care how old she was. She should be held accountable for her fucking actions. You don't let sociopaths who murdered someone when they were a teen out of juvenile detention when they turn 18; they get sent to prison.

[Vassenor]

That's home-grown pure-bread whole-wheat fucking bullshit. Words can not describe how angry I am.

Parliamentary speeches "make it clear that the purpose of the statutory prohibition is to prevent embarrassing and humiliating cross-examination about past sexual activities which it was believed was a deterrent in reporting sexual offences"

Oh that's fucking bullshit. All of this is FUCKING BULLSHIT.

In this case, a man whose name cannot be reported for legal reasons is standing trial on charges of assault and sexual assault of his former partner in 2014.

His defence team sought to have admitted in court evidence of 12 prior false sexual assault complaints said to have been made by the complainant, most of which were made more than a decade earlier in 2001 and 2002 when the complainant was about 14.

This man seemingly did nothing wrong and they're letting a serial liar and someone who lied about rape and sexual abuse in the past get away with it?! That's horseshit. I expected better, Australia.

So you're mad that the defence has to use actual evidence to instill reasonable doubt rather than character assassination?

[Atheris]

That's home-grown pure-bread whole-wheat fucking bullshit. Words can not describe how angry I am.



Oh that's fucking bullshit. All of this is FUCKING BULLSHIT.



This man seemingly did nothing wrong and they're letting a serial liar and someone who lied about rape and sexual abuse in the past get away with it?! That's horseshit. I expected better, Australia.

So you're mad that the defence has to use actual evidence to instill reasonable doubt rather than character assassination?

She accused multiple men of rape and got off scot-fucking-free. That's what I'm mad about. And plus, this isn't character assassination. This is a repeat offender, and a serial liar. There's a difference between character assassination and profiling.

[Vassenor]

So you're mad that the defence has to use actual evidence to instill reasonable doubt rather than character assassination?

She accused multiple men of rape and got off scot-fucking-free. That's what I'm mad about. And plus, this isn't character assassination. This is a repeat offender, and a serial liar. There's a difference between character assassination and profiling.

"She's lied before so clearly she's lying now" is absolutely character assassination.

[Atheris]

She accused multiple men of rape and got off scot-fucking-free. That's what I'm mad about. And plus, this isn't character assassination. This is a repeat offender, and a serial liar. There's a difference between character assassination and profiling.

"She's lied before so clearly she's lying now" is absolutely character assassination.

It's not the fact that she lied before. It's the fact that she lied multiple times before, accusing multiple men of rape, and is doing the exact same thing again. That is not character assassination; it's using pre-existing evidence.

If it was a one-time event, it would be character assassination. But what she did was not just one time.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

We don't hold people responsible for what they did when they were 14.

You seem to expect of Australia the standard of justice which applied when we were a penal colony. But we've progressed since then, following Britain more than the US, for which I am very grateful.

She falsely accused multiple men of rape. I don't care how old she was.

There you said it. 14 year olds deserve the full force of the law.

Well we're not like that in Australia. And we never will be.

This is probably one of those things on which the whole world agrees besides the US, North Korea and Liberia.

She should be held accountable for her fucking actions. You don't let sociopaths who murdered someone when they were a teen out of juvenile detention when they turn 18; they get sent to prison.

You're coming across as way angry about something you just heard about and haven't taken the time to research.

You really need to check your assumptions. The standards of "justice" of the US took me years to get used to, and some things like double jeopardy, plea bargains and the death penalty still sit very poorly with me.

I put it to you that the justice culture of a country is deeply ingrained from a young age, and internalized to some extent, and when those people are exposed to a rather different one of another country it feels fundamentally wrong to them.

[Atheris]

She falsely accused multiple men of rape. I don't care how old she was.

There you said it. 14 year olds deserve the full force of the law.

I never said "the full force of the law". She deserves to be held accountable for her actions. 10 to 20 years in prison? No. More than a slap on the wirst? Obviously. She didn't even get the latter, and that makes me see red.

She should be held accountable for her fucking actions. You don't let sociopaths who murdered someone when they were a teen out of juvenile detention when they turn 18; they get sent to prison.

You're coming across as way angry about something you just heard about and haven't taken the time to research.

I fail to see how you're not angry about it. A woman that accused multiple people of rape is getting off scot-free and allowing future woman that falsely accuse people of rape in the future to get off scot-free as well.

You really need to check your assumptions. The standards of "justice" of the US took me years to get used to, and some things like double jeopardy, plea bargains and the death penalty still sit very poorly with me.

At least our system isn't a charade when it comes to things like this.

I put it to you that the justice culture of a country is deeply ingrained from a young age, and internalized to some extent, and when those people are exposed to a rather different one of another country it feels fundamentally wrong to them.

I don't have a problem with the Australian justice system as a whole. I have a problem with how it constituted this case. It sets a very dangerous precedent.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

"She's lied before so clearly she's lying now" is absolutely character assassination.

It's not the fact that she lied before. It's the fact that she lied multiple times before, accusing multiple men of rape, and is doing the exact same thing again. That is not character assassination; it's using pre-existing evidence.

Previous convictions are not evidence. For a very good reason: having done x before will influence a jury (or even a judge) to think they did x this time. Which is what the trial is supposed to prove. If it is evidence at all, it has to be proven relevant before it's aired in court.

What's more there's no suggestion the woman was charged OR convicted of making false accusations when she was a child. Most likely she made complaints and then dropped them, or made complaints which police did not find credible, in either case that wouldn't be the standard of proof that you're assuming exists.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

There you said it. 14 year olds deserve the full force of the law.

I never said "the full force of the law". She deserves to be held accountable for her actions. 10 to 20 years in prison? No. More than a slap on the wirst? Obviously. She didn't even get the latter, and that makes me see red.

You know how, that she was never charged or convicted when she was younger? Youth offenders are charged, and being youth they're most often put into a diversionary program rather than juvenile detention, but serious offences do land kids in juvie until 18 and then into an adult prison.

Sorry for cutting your post short, but I need some time to research the case further.

[Atheris]

It's not the fact that she lied before. It's the fact that she lied multiple times before, accusing multiple men of rape, and is doing the exact same thing again. That is not character assassination; it's using pre-existing evidence.

Previous convictions are not evidence. For a very good reason: having done x before will influence a jury (or even a judge) to think they did x this time. Which is what the trial is supposed to prove. If it is evidence at all, it has to be proven relevant before it's aired in court.

What's more there's no suggestion the woman was charged OR convicted of making false accusations when she was a child. Most likely she made complaints and then dropped them, or made complaints which police did not find credible, in either case that wouldn't be the standard of proof that you're assuming exists.

...It seems we both must research further - preferably when it's not 2 AM. I'll have to look into the case more myself.

Regardless, apologies if I sounded either extremely pissed off or insufferably arrogant. Lying about trauma like this is one of the few things I find absolutely unforgivable.

[Gravlen]

I never said "the full force of the law". She deserves to be held accountable for her actions. 10 to 20 years in prison? No. More than a slap on the wirst? Obviously. She didn't even get the latter, and that makes me see red.

You know how, that she was never charged or convicted when she was younger? Youth offenders are charged, and being youth they're most often put into a diversionary program rather than juvenile detention, but serious offences do land kids in juvie until 18 and then into an adult prison.

Sorry for cutting your post short, but I need some time to research the case further.

The reason why she wasn't charged or convicted when she was younger is that it's not a criminal offence to tell people - not the police - that you've been raped.

These accusations have not been proven false, by the way. As the court notes (in 45 - 47):

The applicant’s written submissions repeatedly made reference to eight of these incidents (namely, 1-6, 11 and 12) as involving “proven” fabrications. That characterisation is inaccurate and unhelpful, as will be elaborated when dealing with proposed ground 2. It led to a side-issue, based on a document provided to the primary judge by the Crown which stated “The only proven instance of dishonesty is the 2009 [make false] report and 2001 retraction”, from which the applicant maintained that the Crown should not be permitted to resile.

It is as well to address the difficulties of labelling incidents “proven” or otherwise at the outset. First, nothing has been “proven”, and if and when that occurs, it will be the function of the tribunal of fact. Secondly, whether or not something is “proven” is irrelevant for present purposes; this appeal is principally about rules of admissibility, which are framed in terms of evidence, not incidents. Thirdly, it is quite plain that the evidence supporting each category is of a different nature and gives rise to different levels of contestability.

It is much more helpful to identify three categories into which those 12 incidents fall, by reference to the evidence presently available to the applicant which bears upon them.

This is also an important part (66 - 68):

Essentially, the underlying evidentiary basis for the 12 incidents amounts to (a) hearsay statements in police investigations, (b) an elaborately fabricated letter purporting to be from a firm of solicitors concerning a sexual assault, (c) the 2009 incident of complaint of sexual assault, also quite elaborately detailed but rapidly withdrawn after it was made, leading to a guilty plea to the charge of making a false report to police, and (d) one or perhaps more admissions by the complainant in notes of conversations with the police and the Director that she had made up the 11th and 12th incidents. It is possible that the applicant will also seek to adduce testimonial evidence from those involved in the events of 2001, 2002 and 2009. All this comprises the “evidence of false complaint”.

Incidents 1-10 are of less probative value than incidents 11 and 12. The former involve hearsay evidence almost two decades old. Incident 12 is relatively recent, although still some five years before the sexual offences on the indictment. Both incidents 11 and 12 involve clear evidence that the complainant has maintained something which is not true. The reconstructed letter identifies a series of lawyers, doctors and police officers who did not exist. Either the complainant’s original complaint to police in 2009 of being raped by “Leon”, or her admission of guilt to the offence of making a false statement, was false.

Subject to the operation of s 293 and the rulings which give rise to this appeal, it would be open to the applicant to cross-examine on the basis that the complainant had fabricated all 12 of the incidents, and it might also be possible, depending on the course of the trial, to tender some of the documentary material. The Crown accepted that s 293 did not stand in the way of cross-examining the complainant on aspects of “incident 12” which did not disclose the allegations of sexual assault – for example, the complainant could be cross-examined on the fact that she had pleaded guilty to making a false statement to police about a violent assault by a man.

(My boldening)

The last bit shows that the question of her credibility can still become central in this trial.

[Philjia]

Use of prior convictions, behaviour, et cetera not explicitly related to the case at hand is a highly dubious practice that can be used to unfairly bias a jury against a defendant, witness, or plaintiff. One must remember that in the fable of the boy who cried wolf, on the third occasion there was, in fact, a wolf. Something having previously happened is not actually substantial evidence that it will happen again. Regardless, the admission of any evidence into court is at the discretion of the presiding judge to assess on a case by case basis.

[Australian rePublic]

I don't know what to make of this

[Purpelia]

As far as I am concerned someone that makes a deliberately false accusation not out of error (as in accidentally the wrong target) but just flat out invents the crime should be given the maximum sentence that is handed out for the crime in question. And this should be compulsory. The victim or anyone else should not have a say or way to avert it.

[Vassenor]

As far as I am concerned someone that makes a deliberately false accusation not out of error (as in accidentally the wrong target) but just flat out invents the crime should be given the maximum sentence that is handed out for the crime in question. And this should be compulsory. The victim or anyone else should not have a say or way to avert it.

Life in prison for a civil offence? Seems perfectly proportionate.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

As far as I am concerned someone that makes a deliberately false accusation not out of error (as in accidentally the wrong target) but just flat out invents the crime

... and for some reason admits to it ...

should be given the maximum sentence that is handed out for the crime in question. And this should be compulsory. The victim or anyone else should not have a say or way to avert it.

[Galloism]

As far as I am concerned someone that makes a deliberately false accusation not out of error (as in accidentally the wrong target) but just flat out invents the crime should be given the maximum sentence that is handed out for the crime in question. And this should be compulsory. The victim or anyone else should not have a say or way to avert it.

Life in prison for a civil offence? Seems perfectly proportionate.

Notably, I disagree on that (executing someone for making up a murder seems fairly ironic), but it probably should be thought of as equivalent to kidnapping or attempted kidnapping when you make knowingly false reports of serious crimes, as you are effecting a kidnapping by proxy of an innocent person.