Our Westminster, i.e., ancient, feudal, adversarial system of "justice" is, I believe, hardly about justice whatsoever but, I believe, solely about winning. And puts victims on trial after trashing/tearing it to shreds, as much as possible, their reputations and honesty.

It gives those, I believe, with the deepest pockets, all the advantages and those without financial resources, none or very much second, third and fourth-rate outcomes.

Milks available legal aid, I believe, to the max as the best outcome for the legal profession rather than to advantage the victim.

It's time to simply illuminate the truth and impose true appropriate justice on the criminals and perpetrators.

It should only ever be, do the crime and do the time.

And wherever possible, rehabilitate the law breakers.

Treat drug addiction as a medical problem rather than a criminal jailable offence, e.g.

Uses your innocent social contacts and friendships to imply impropriety or worse and by implication alone, that is for the most part, free of validating facts.

Unbeatable space age lie detection can be used in very private non-hostile circumstance to establish for al, time the total veracity of the "sworn evidence" What we want to expose and rarely ever actual do in full, is the factual truth. Or rarely if ever, expose perjured evidence which is also a crime!
Alan B.

In the first news report I heard, a juror's box of papers was knocked off the table accidentally.
A paper fell out, and its content was noticed.
Subsequently, the story changes slightly to make it more believable.
But I don't for one minute think it happened like that.
For that particular box to fall, and for that particular paper to be exposed?
And for the content of that paper to be recognised immediately as inappropriate?
Accepting all that is just too much to for my imagination to cope with.
Perhaps the document boxes were being checked?
Perhaps there was a suspiscion that something was amiss?
In any case, the paper was out of the box.
Which meant that the cat was well and truly out of the bag.
And quite logically and quite rightly, the trial was stopped at that point.

I got to thinking a bit more about this.
The deliberation of jurors is private.
No outsider can lawfully interfere or influence those deliberations.
Surely any materials jurors have or use in the jury room should be private too?
Any notes or drawings they make and so on.
Accidental access to them by any person should not involve reporting anything they contained?
To me, that is akin to law enforcement using unlawfully acquired evidence.
Which of course would not be accepted.
I know I have no intimate knowledge of court procedures.
So perhaps I have no right to comment.
But it all sure seems strange to me.
However, once the intelligence re the document was relayed to the judge, he or she had no option but to act?

It's not the trial imploding, it's the stupidity of the system that allowed this Higgins sheilah to try to make money from conning an innocent bloke (innocent as being drunk).
If there is such a thing as Justice he'll get off & she gets what she deserves !
Also, the security outfit in the big outhouse needs a pay cut in line with their performance !

Gidday Taswegian,

Yer darn right mate.

Here I was thinking if a bloke like you were to get maggoted and one of your acquaintances who leans that way decided he should feel free to drop your dacks and give you a good rogering while you were out to it, then you would have cause to have a bit of a gripe about it.

Seems not since as you say you would have been partly to blame. Wouldn't need to go to the coppers or even get upset, just cop it on the chin and get a nice soft cushion to sit on for a few day. She'll be right hey.

Whether or not Brittany Higgins was unwise to get so drunk she passed out has no bearing on Bruce Lehrmann’s culpability if he did, in fact, rape her.

That the trial was abandoned and rescheduled is an awful but necessary tragedy which will prolong the undoubted misery of both accused and accuser in this case.

As usual, Arndt ignores or misrepresents facts and sources. For example, the Elle magazine article does not “attack the court system”; it uses the case to illustrate the “perfect victim” fallacy is sexual assault cases.