Rape trials generally showcase our legal system at its worst

The defendant also suffered substantially despite being found not guilty.  He would have been under great stress for a year, and had faced the threat of a significant jail sentence and legal costs (some of which he may still have to pay).  In a statement read by his father, he said the last year had been the worst of his life.  "Not only did the prosecution continue to run this case when it was clear the complainant was not telling the truth, but they only agreed to disclose crucial evidence to my lawyers after they threatened to have the trial stopped for unfairness."  He said they intended to make a complaint to the ACT Attorney-General "about the conduct of the police and the prosecution".

There is an inherent difficulty in proving rape in that, firstly, it is necessary to both prove that sex took place and that it was non-consensual, and, secondly, it is in the nature of rape that it is generally unwitnessed.  Consequently "he said, she said" situations are almost inevitable in the courtroom, and invariably many perpetrators go unpunished (due to insufficient evidence and "beyond reasonable doubt" rules), partly to ensure that innocent accused are not wrongfully convicted.

While there is no obvious solution to the problem of getting convictions in cases of genuine rape (where there is lack of evidence), the law (in my view) has become unbalanced due to "reforms" introduced by "progressive" legislators, aimed at increasing conviction rates.  In response to the common difficulty in proving lack of consent, legislators have introduced a wide range of circumstances, where there is deemed to be a conclusive presumption of lack of consent.  

The ACT is a peculiar jurisdiction in that, while it is widely regarded as very lenient on criminals, this is not the case in respect of crimes against women, both in law and in sentencing.  In rape cases most states mandate that there is no consent where the complainant is so affected by alcohol or other drugs as "to be incapable of freely agreeing". In the ACT, there is no such qualification.  Section 67 of the Crimes Act (ACT) simply says that "consent is negated... if that consent is caused by the effect of intoxicating liquor".  In this case the Crown sought to use Section 67 to gain a conviction, even if the defendant could demonstrate actual consent.

Given that there must be thousands of acts of drunken sex annually, according to the law in places like the ACT, there are many men that could be charged with rape, if reported on by their partners.  Such charges might be reasonable if the woman is very drunk and her male partner is relatively sober.  The question is, is it fair that, when both parties are drunk and engage in impulsive ill-considered sex, that blame is placed solely on the male to the point that he faces a jail term, while she is deemed blameless and treated entirely as a victim?