NationStates

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/pri ... 558qp.html

Prior false accusations for rape have been ruled not admissible as evidence against the character of accusers and the trustworthiness of their testimony.

A jury in a NSW rape trial cannot be told about a complainant's alleged history of making false complaints and any change to the law would need to be made by Parliament, the Court of Criminal Appeal has said.
In a decision on Friday, a five-judge bench of the court said NSW laws protecting sexual assault complainants from being cross-examined about their sexual history also stopped evidence of prior false complaints being admitted in court.
Chief Justice Tom Bathurst said 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".
But a long line of cases ruled it also extended to alleged false complaints, and "any change to the law in this area is a matter for the legislature not for the courts", he said.
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.

The legislation in question was brought in without consideration for the damage it would do to innocent men and without consideration for the consequences it would have for empowering false accusations, that much is now undeniable, and a result of the gynocentrism of those who proposed the legislation.

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.
One of the complaints was said to involve a fake letter from a non-existent law firm.
Justice Mark Leeming said the law, section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Act, "contains textual errors, and ... is needlessly complex".

And their work "contains textual errors and is needlessly complex.".

No comment.

The court declined to stay or halt the criminal trial on the basis the accused would not receive a fair trial. Justice Leeming said the complainant could be cross-examined about one instance in which she pleaded guilty to making a false statement to police "about a serious claim against a man inflicting violence upon her".

Well that's something at least. (The reason this is allowed in, is it's not sexual in nature, and thus not prohibited as evidence.).

The court said any change would need to be made by Parliament, because criticism of the section including by the NSW Law Reform Commission was well known and it had chosen not to act to date.

And, likewise, the consequences of the legislation in question have been criticized such that we cannot claim this is an unforeseen error, rather, it is a consequence they simply don't care about, because they do not have any concern for people who aren't women.

A NSW government spokesperson said Attorney-General Mark Speakman asked his department in September last year to review the law and it had "received submissions from stakeholders expressing strong and divergent views". It was necessary for the review to await this decision and it would "carefully consider" the judgment.

And there's the problem. The entrenched lobbies who push these kinds of laws.



I think it's fairly obvious this needs to be addressed and overturned in our legislatures. I've also outlined the reasons I suspect these problems keep arising.

While the argument could be made that "Just because she's lied 14 times before about this, doesn't mean she isn't telling the truth this time", but that's an argument that should be made in court as it's an incredibly relevant piece of evidence in defense of the accused. It also reveals the underlying dynamic imposed by these lobbyists, where the accused is expected to prove their innocence, rather than prosecutors prove their guilt. Evidence that does not directly prove the rape didn't happen is not something they wish to tolerate because it does not directly "Prove innocence", but they are willing to tolerate circumstantial evidence in favor of proving it did. Suppose we were to ban any form of evidence that didn't directly prove a rape occurred without any alternative possible explanations.

This is especially odious in this example, but extends to other examples also. That this problem has been noted before in numerous trials and challenged before strongly suggests that false accusers have been empowered by this legislation to use state violence against their victims, and that innocent men have suffered because of it.

Discuss?

Don't expect anyone to bother fixing this.

All I wanna know is how someone can come in and make another rape allegation after making several false ones. After the first one, their bitch ass should have been locked up for 10 to 20 years.

Rojava Free State wrote:All I wanna know is how someone can come in and make another rape allegation after making several false ones. After the first one, their bitch ass should have been locked up for 10 to 20 years.

Because #believewomen

The Reformed American Republic wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:All I wanna know is how someone can come in and make another rape allegation after making several false ones. After the first one, their bitch ass should have been locked up for 10 to 20 years.

Because #believewomen

And people wonder why there's been a backlash to me too.

Rojava Free State wrote:All I wanna know is how someone can come in and make another rape allegation after making several false ones. After the first one, their bitch ass should have been locked up for 10 to 20 years.

Agreed but take issue with "several", it's dozens in this case. Dozens of false accusations.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:All I wanna know is how someone can come in and make another rape allegation after making several false ones. After the first one, their bitch ass should have been locked up for 10 to 20 years.

Agreed but take issue with "several", it's dozens in this case. Dozens of false accusations.

People who make false rape allegations deserve to be exposed. Remember those two women, im sorry, skanks who tried to claim Justin Bieber raped them? Well Justin released evidence that he wasn't anywhere near them and then Twitter dug up the weird rape fantasies these girls had of Justin. These two weirdos got exposed big time by the twitterverse for almost ruining a man's life cause "this will be fun." Good luck being accepted anywhere after your face was all over twitter for committing such an evil act. Their 15 seconds of fame has led to years of shame.

I don't expect justice.

The Reformed American Republic wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:All I wanna know is how someone can come in and make another rape allegation after making several false ones. After the first one, their bitch ass should have been locked up for 10 to 20 years.

Because #believewomen

Are we working on the actual definition of that, or what the conservatives want us to believe is the definition of that?

Prior convictions can't be used as evidence. That doesn't seem right to me.

But your case against this woman is that she made "false" but never ruled-upon claims of rape when she was 14.

The one complaint she made which was substantial (the false letter from a non-existent attorney) actually WAS allowed as evidence.

You're basically beating up a case against a woman whose "false accusations" were made when she was a child.






Men's rights for the win. We can't get the women, they're too smart. Let's beat up some girls.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:Prior convictions can't be used as evidence. That doesn't seem right to me.

But your case against this woman is that she made "false" but never ruled-upon claims of rape when she was 14.

The one complaint she made which was substantial (the false letter from a non-existent attorney) actually WAS allowed as evidence.

You're basically beating up a case against a woman whose "false accusations" were made when she was a child.






Men's rights for the win. We can't get the women, they're too smart. Let's beat up some girls.

This case is an example, but as the article notes its a persistent problem and has been applied previously too.

I note how you start out with conceding it doesn't seem right, then desperately flail about for some reason to attack the MRM for bringing it up.

She made the accusations while at the age of criminal responsibility, so I'm not sure how that's relevant.

It's also interesting you characterize this as me "beating up on some girls" when my post is pretty clearly leveled at the lobbyists and people who wrote this law. I think it's fairly clear you're not acting in good faith here and are simply looking for reasons to characterize the MRM as bad, even if they are spurious and poorly founded, rather than admit to yourself who the actual villains are in this instance, the people who created the circumstances you concede "Don't seem right".

However, having been trained by decades of feminist indoctrination, you have immediately cast your gaze somewhere, anywhere else, but at feminists doing wrong. While doing so you also lash out at people who bring your attention to their wrongdoing, almost like you have some kind of vested interested in continuing to believe they're not a negative influence on society and afraid of the idea of discovering otherwise.

Doesn't that seem a little odd to you?

You'll notice I didn't make much of a comment on the woman in question. So why characterize it that way? Because it's a convenient narrative you've latched onto, somewhere to cast your gaze other than where you should be casting it.

At a certain point, dealing with feminists feels like pointing to the moon and them insisting on looking at your finger.


Let's take a look at your post and see where this issue arises.

Prior convictions can't be used as evidence. That doesn't seem right to me.

But your case against this woman is that she made "false" but never ruled-upon claims of rape when she was 14.

The one complaint she made which was substantial (the false letter from a non-existent attorney) actually WAS allowed as evidence.

You're basically beating up a case against a woman whose "false accusations" were made when she was a child.






Men's rights for the win. We can't get the women, they're too smart. Let's beat up some girls

Ah, I think i've got it, let's try this.

Prior convictions can't be used as evidence. That doesn't seem right to me.

But

There, isn't that better? Keep looking at it, don't cast your eyes about trying to find something else to look at because you don't want to acknowledge it.

Internalize it. "That doesn't seem right to me.".

Now take a look at who did it, why, and so on. Try not to derail the conversation, which is, "Feminists did something that does not seem right to me".

Don't notice it, and then desperately try and make something else the conversation rather than focus on it because you've become indoctrinated. You've noticed it. Why not consider it further.

I realize this may come across as glib or condescending, but that isn't my intention. It's to get you to actually notice how you are behaving here and contemplate why. Why are you so afraid of looking at the moon?

Rojava Free State wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Agreed but take issue with "several", it's dozens in this case. Dozens of false accusations.

People who make false rape allegations deserve to be exposed. Remember those two women, im sorry, skanks who tried to claim Justin Bieber raped them? Well Justin released evidence that he wasn't anywhere near them and then Twitter dug up the weird rape fantasies these girls had of Justin. These two weirdos got exposed big time by the twitterverse for almost ruining a man's life cause "this will be fun." Good luck being accepted anywhere after your face was all over twitter for committing such an evil act. Their 15 seconds of fame has led to years of shame.

This is an example of how the lies people tell themselves about how they're "Only after powerful men" are detatched from reality. Powerful men have the means to clear their name in this instances, much like the title 9 debacle their similar "Guilty until proven innocent" lobbying got them, where most of the students who ended up suffering the consequences were minority males and working class males. A working class man would not have been in Biebers position to clear his name.

The empowerment of false accusers by the feminist movement, along with their empowerment of domestic abusers and female rapists, is often ignored when they talk about their record on these subjects, because of the gynocentrism of the ideology and its focus on outcomes for women rather than outcomes for people and society. Sort of like characterizing colonization as a good thing, because look, it helped white people.

Lying bitches who make false rape accusations should be locked up, not given any further opportunities to ruin the lives of even more male victims. These feminists clearly don't believe in due process. They are not liberal in any way.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:Prior convictions can't be used as evidence. That doesn't seem right to me.

But your case against this woman is that she made "false" but never ruled-upon claims of rape when she was 14.

The one complaint she made which was substantial (the false letter from a non-existent attorney) actually WAS allowed as evidence.

You're basically beating up a case against a woman whose "false accusations" were made when she was a child.






Men's rights for the win. We can't get the women, they're too smart. Let's beat up some girls.

This case is an example, but as the article notes its a persistent problem and has been applied previously too.

I note how you start out with conceding it doesn't seem right, then desperately flail about for some reason to attack the MRM for bringing it up.

Yeah, I start out asserting that not admitting priors in court doesn't serve the interests of justice. That's for ALL CASES, it's admitting a prior bias towards YOUR argument.

Do I need to spell out for you that injustices which apply to all cases cannot be brought in argument against a particular kind of case?

So the problem is that the defence has to use actual evidence to refute the case and instil reasonable doubt rather than character assassination?

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
This case is an example, but as the article notes its a persistent problem and has been applied previously too.

I note how you start out with conceding it doesn't seem right, then desperately flail about for some reason to attack the MRM for bringing it up.

Yeah, I start out asserting that not admitting priors in court doesn't serve the interests of justice. That's for ALL CASES, it's admitting a prior bias towards YOUR argument.

Do I need to spell out for you that injustices which apply to all cases cannot be brought in argument against a particular kind of case?

And yet, the reason an exception is carved out for *these* type of priors is the objection I have here. They're allowed in other cases. I agree with you that priors in all cases where they are relevant should be allowed. In this case and others like it, they are not. And the reason for that is gynocentric lobbying.

Rojava Free State wrote:All I wanna know is how someone can come in and make another rape allegation after making several false ones. After the first one, their bitch ass should have been locked up for 10 to 20 years.

She was a minor when she made them. She may well have been punished for that. Records tend to get sealed.

New Bremerton wrote:Lying bitches who make false rape accusations should be locked up, not given any further opportunities to ruin the lives of even more male victims. These feminists clearly don't believe in due process. They are not liberal in any way.

"Not given any further opportunities"

Does this mean they should be locked up until they die of old age?

Or does it mean they should be imprisoned for a while, but after that be fair game for any rapist? Never allowed to report rape ever again?

Explain yourself!

Greed and Death wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:All I wanna know is how someone can come in and make another rape allegation after making several false ones. After the first one, their bitch ass should have been locked up for 10 to 20 years.

She was a minor when she made them. She may well have been punished for that. Records tend to get sealed.

Not that well sealed it seems.

New Bremerton wrote:Lying bitches who make false rape accusations should be locked up, not given any further opportunities to ruin the lives of even more male victims. These feminists clearly don't believe in due process. They are not liberal in any way.

And how do you define "false accusation"?

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Yeah, I start out asserting that not admitting priors in court doesn't serve the interests of justice. That's for ALL CASES, it's admitting a prior bias towards YOUR argument.

Do I need to spell out for you that injustices which apply to all cases cannot be brought in argument against a particular kind of case?

And yet, the reason an exception is carved out for *these* type of priors is the objection I have here. They're allowed in other cases. I agree with you that priors in all cases where they are relevant should be allowed. In this case and others like it, they are not. And the reason for that is gynocentric lobbying.

Or perhaps that the complaints were made when she was a minor, and no jurisdiction anywhere would hold her responsible for making false claims then?

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
And yet, the reason an exception is carved out for *these* type of priors is the objection I have here. They're allowed in other cases. I agree with you that priors in all cases where they are relevant should be allowed. In this case and others like it, they are not. And the reason for that is gynocentric lobbying.

Or perhaps that the complaints were made when she was a minor, and no jurisdiction anywhere would hold her responsible for making false claims then?

But that would make this not the fault of those evil feminists.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

New Bremerton wrote:Lying bitches who make false rape accusations should be locked up, not given any further opportunities to ruin the lives of even more male victims. These feminists clearly don't believe in due process. They are not liberal in any way.

"Not given any further opportunities"

Does this mean they should be locked up until they die of old age?

Or does it mean they should be imprisoned for a while, but after that be fair game for any rapist? Never allowed to report rape ever again?

Explain yourself!

It radically undermines the value of their testimony in future instances. Cases should never solely rely on the testimony of the person anyway, but sometimes there's evidence like bruises and so on to corroborate it and not much else. If the accuser is alleging they were raped and the accused says it didn't happen and she said she wanted rough sex and that's why she has the bruises, them a prior history of false accusation *does* lend some credence to that notion that might strain credulity in other circumstances.

It means that the case has to rely on evidence other than her version of events and on the material facts and should give more of critical eye to her explanation of them.

And that's only fair, because the trial is *not about her*, it's about the accused.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
And yet, the reason an exception is carved out for *these* type of priors is the objection I have here. They're allowed in other cases. I agree with you that priors in all cases where they are relevant should be allowed. In this case and others like it, they are not. And the reason for that is gynocentric lobbying.

Or perhaps that the complaints were made when she was a minor, and no jurisdiction anywhere would hold her responsible for making false claims then?

And yet, the article notes that judges have complained about exactly this issue in the past. This is merely one that made the news. Why are you afraid of talking about the general problem and insisting on the specific case?

Extant case seems pretty clear. 10+ years ago and a minor is probably more prejudicial than probative. It’s akin to pointing out a man accused of murder was picked up for spray painting a fence 10 years ago when he was 14, but has had a clean nose ever since. That’s probably just attempting to introduce prejudice, not get to the facts.

As they say though, bad cases make bad case law.

Someone who was found to have made false claims last year as an adult with the same motive (IE, employment reasons, or revenge, etc) would be more probative than prejudicial, but would also seem to be blocked by this ruling. And that’s a problem, because the bar appears to be so blanket justice will be undermined by blocking the defense’s ability to probe the prosecution’s witness’s credibility.

That’s a problem.