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?
