Rape trials generally showcase our legal system at its worst

While the complainant remained anonymous in the media, the Canberra Times named the defendant in every report, as it was legally allowed to.  Additionally the paper (in either hard copy or on the internet) presented multiple pictures of the defendant, his legal team, and his family.  Given that the defendant is presumed innocent unless convicted, surely he ought to have his identity suppressed as well.  Irrespective of the outcome of the case, the defendant would suffer irreversible damage to his reputation. 

Another unfortunate aspect of the case was that the woman spent  almost ten hours over several days giving evidence, answering a barrage of embarrassing personal questions during cross-examination (that had her in tears on occasions).  While examination of witness testimony is important, especially where accounts of the facts differ, ten hours seems an enormous length of time, and was obviously traumatic.

I will outline some of the cross-examination reported in order to illustrate its invasive and personal nature, which nevertheless in many aspects was necessary to test her evidence. 

Hundreds of messages between the two cadets in the lead-up to the alleged rape were scrutinised for meaning and intent.  The defence suggested many were "flirty". The woman said she had been joking, not flirting. "It's reasonable to joke with someone that you know. I was joking with a friend."

Barristers pointed to the woman's seemingly coordinated movements around the club, in nearly two hours of surveillance footage, and text messages sent with no spelling mistakes, in an effort to cast doubt on the Crown's contentions she was too drunk to consent. 

The defence also focussed on a kiss the pair shared at the top of a Canberra lookout the evening before, and a visit to his room later that night.

"And the next night you had a few drinks and jumped a few steps in this relationship building, and decided to have sex with him, didn't you?"  "No," came the woman's answer as she choked back tears.  "And then like kissing, you felt bad about it and you regret it in the morning?"  "No."  "And you were okay with it, apart from your own guilt, until [another cadet] said to you that was wrong. Correct?"  "No."

The woman agreed that she had gone back to the defendant's room after going nightclubbing, and consensually kissed him, but she said this was a kiss between friends. She also agreed he had with her consent touched her.  "Was he touching you as a friend?" the defence barrister asked.  "No. I don't know what you're trying to imply," she said.  "You were allowing him to touch you intimately ... because you wanted to have sex with him."  "No," came the reply.  The barrister suggested the woman in fact had consensual sex with the defendant in a natural progression of their flirtation and then felt guilty about it and made up the allegation. "I don't agree with that," she said.

In the end, the jury found the defendant not guilty, taking just over an hour to return the unanimous verdict.

There were no winners in this case.

The Crown spent a lot of time and money running the prosecution but failed to get a conviction.

The complainant, would have had to endure over a year of build-up to the hearing, several days of difficult cross-examination, and in the end did not get the conviction she sought.  There may also be negative repercussions if she stays on at ADFA.