The Forum > Article Comments > Innocence not compensation enough > Comments
Innocence not compensation enough : Comments
By Tim Meehan, published 23/3/2006A story of rape allegations, a family torn apart, a father in custody - and then found to be innocent. Compensation? Forget it!
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
- 3
-
- All
It is obvious that this girl refused medical examination because it could have also shown what her new 'lover' (not that love ever came into this) was up to:
The next door neighbour should be in gaol, no 28 year old man (or woman) should be involved sexually with a 14 year old.
(Actually no one should be sexually involved with a 14 year old: or is it unfortunately accepted now that a 16 year old can have sex with a 14 year old, but cannot take pornographic photos of them? The sex not being a crime anymore?)
Maybe if the police had investigated this area, even against the girl's wishes, this sorry saga may have had a slightly changed end.
I know that in NSW an accused person can be reimbursed costs if the Judge rules that the charges should never have been brought even to the committal stage: I cannot remember the exact wording that I have heard a Judge use - it has been a while - but it was in a trial where there was a directed verdict - directed because the evidence adduced in cross examination at trial should have been obtained by the police in their initial investigation.
There is scope for reimbursement of costs, and I appreciate what it being said here about the limitations being placed on the committal system in Queensland.
Whilst overly vigorous cross examination of the alleged victim of sexual assault should be avoided at committal, there is surely a balance that could be found: one possibility being a series of questions being formulated before cross examination starts and being agreed to by both sides and the magistrate.
This would avoid the alleged victim being subject to a battery of questions that objections from the prosecution would not take the sting out of.