Who was the victim in this rape case?

What is especially worrying about the case involving a charge of rape against Victorian state MP Theo Theophanous is the fact that it reveals a legal system which has been seriously corrupted by political correctness. It is clearly a charge that should never have been laid by the police. Some police now obviously consider themselves to be advocates for rape victims. Now this on the face of it sounds fine doesn't it? Who wouldn't feel sympathy and empathy for a woman who has been through such an ordeal? But hang on a minute, because we 'aint actually there yet! The police are dealing with accusations of rape, not proved incidences of rape. That's what the court case is for. Not, as women's advocates are trying to make it, as a ritualised process leading inevitably to the conviction of the male bastard, but rather to test the evidence and, if it supports such a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt, find him guilty. One of the most important human rights protections in the history of humanity is the Golden Thread that we inherited from the Mother Country. The Golden Thread that runs through British justice is the simple notion, though absolutely revolutionary when first adopted centuries ago, that it is the State that has to prove you guilty of any charge brought against you. It is not for you to have to try and prove your innocence, as you do in countries using the Napoleonic Code. That is, you are innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the State, not you. But now it is clear that even sections of various police forces dealing with sexual assaults have turned their backs on this central protection we have against the arbitrary use of state power against us, and are now assuming that men accused of such assaults are guilty. With this comes an identification with the accuser or, as they would have it, the 'victim.' Don't get me wrong please. The woman may very well be a victim of rape. I'd guess myself that the overwhelming majority of women going to the police with accusations of being raped are indeed telling the truth and are indeed the victims of a terrible crime. But not always. Women can and do tell lies. Some times their accusations are motivated by other considerations. Revenge. Regret. Mental illness. Perceived opportunity for monetary gain. In this case we have a woman who appears to be unstable and untruthful, having a prior conviction for fraud, and who also anticipated making money from her accusation. However, instead of alarm bells starting to ring for the investigating police, they went out of their way to massage, by continual redrafting - over a period of 15 months - of her statements, her inconsistent claims and the fact that people she identified as being able to corroborate her story contradicted her. Two women who she claimed she rang on the night in question flat out denied this. Then there were the post-dated letters and emails that supposedly supported the claim and which, in part, were used to try and press gang a person into supporting it. And yet the police pressed on with the matter and, despite all of the clear and manifest problems with her testimony, eventually laid charges against Theophanous. Not surprisingly, the magistrate dismissed the charge and was scathing about the case that had been brought to court. So Theophanous has been found to be innocent, but his political career is completely ruined and he has announced his intention to not contest the next state election. Robert Richter QC, Theophanous's barrister, explains why the decision to lay charges in this case was an outrage.

Posted via email from Garth's posterous