Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here’s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Rape trials generally showcase our legal system at its worst

By Brendan O'Reilly - posted Thursday, 27 July 2017


Canberra was recently captivated by a high profile rape case involving cadets attending the Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA).  A 19 year old male ADFA cadet had been accused of raping an 18 year old female cadet in his room during the early hours, following a night of drinking. 

As is the case with many rape trials, there were two distinct versions of events, which were "chalk and cheese" (to quote the defendant's barrister).  The defendant did not deny having sex but said he believed it was consensual, and pleaded not guilty.

I will outline (a shortened version of) events as described in the Canberra Times report.  The summary therefore is the reporter's take.

Advertisement

The complainant told the ACT Supreme Court about the defendant being drunk after a dining-in night, which she said involved a three-course meal on campus with free, unlimited alcohol.  The woman described how, after texting, he joined her (about 10PM) at a nightclub and, after midnight, they took a taxi back to the defendant's room at the ADFA campus.

"It wasn't consensual. Because I just kind of went along with it but I just kept saying I want to go to sleep," she said.  "It's still fuzzy, what happened."

The complainant conceded that she kissed and lay down with the defendant, and turned over to go to sleep. "Then I came back into consciousness ... back into what was happening.  He was having sex and I just lay there because it took me a while to work out what was happening". 

Prompted by police, the woman described herself as "heavily intoxicated" that night. She had not had dinner, she felt confused, dizzy, wobbly and that she didn't have a "barrier" on what she was saying or doing.  She described how she fretted for days over whether to report it because she was worried about her career.

The defendant's barrister told the jury that his client was blown away by the accusation and claimed texts leading up to the incident showed the pair had liked each other.  He said, if someone woke up and regretted their actions after a night out drinking, that didn't mean it hadn't been done of free will.  He told the jury it was only when a friend told the woman that what had happened was wrong, that the woman started to question the night's events.

Prosecutors suggested the jury would have no trouble concluding beyond reasonable doubt that the woman did not consent to sexual intercourse.  Alternatively, if the jury did find there was consent, the Crown said it was the woman's intoxication that caused the consent. Under ACT legislation, consent caused by intoxication is negated.

Advertisement

There are a number of aspects on the case that show legal procedures surrounding the case in a bad light.

Firstly, the Court ordered that the identity of the complainant be suppressed, and allowed her to give evidence by audio-visual link from a remote witness room.  The judge said this was standard procedure in the ACT for sexual assault and rape cases, and jurors were not to assign any more or less weight to her evidence as a result. 

I don't have a problem with all this, except that the same protections were not available to the defendant. 

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

15 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Brendan O’Reilly is a retired commonwealth public servant with a background in economics and accounting. He is currently pursuing private business interests.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Brendan O'Reilly

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 15 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy