It may be my own experience working in a system that not only dealt with external wrong-doings but accusations of wrong-doing within the system...but one of the things that really annoys me is ‘pre-judging’ an accused because of the way they look, sound or a media reported description of events.
Every accused is entitled to a presumption of innocence and a due process to determine their fate. Every accuser/ victim should also be allowed to tell their story. Sadly, that will always take a bit of courage, especially in relation to sexual assault.
Unless we sit through a court process or listen to a full judgement, we really have no idea.
Yesterday Lehrmann received his due process. Justice Lee was thorough and methodical in his summation and findings. He gave a detailed account based on evidence of every aspect of the evening. Where behaviour seemed strange, he addressed it and gave reasons why it might have occurred. Where things stretched credibility, he called it out. Where evidence was a bit dodgy, he called it out.
He determined on the basis of all probability that a rape did occur. Anyone listening to his summation would find it hard to disagree.
He was clear to point out the difference between a criminal and civil case, and the burden of proof, and that in a criminal case the same finding of guilt may not necessarily have been made.
He was actually quite critical of just about all of the parties involved in the case. He found them all a bit reckless or ‘unreliable’. They were all a bit dubious…but he found Lehrmann was not only dubious but also a ‘rapist’.
Ten and Wilkinson can consider themselves lucky. Justice Lee found Lehrmann was identifiable and therefore ‘defamed’. Had the ‘truth’ aspect failed the other parties would have been looking at a seriously large payout.
As it is the costs of this case will be extensive. Lehrmann will find he may have recovered his ‘hat’…but he will be left with little else.
Every accused is entitled to a presumption of innocence and a due process to determine their fate. Every accuser/ victim should also be allowed to tell their story. Sadly, that will always take a bit of courage, especially in relation to sexual assault.
Unless we sit through a court process or listen to a full judgement, we really have no idea.
Yesterday Lehrmann received his due process. Justice Lee was thorough and methodical in his summation and findings. He gave a detailed account based on evidence of every aspect of the evening. Where behaviour seemed strange, he addressed it and gave reasons why it might have occurred. Where things stretched credibility, he called it out. Where evidence was a bit dodgy, he called it out.
He determined on the basis of all probability that a rape did occur. Anyone listening to his summation would find it hard to disagree.
He was clear to point out the difference between a criminal and civil case, and the burden of proof, and that in a criminal case the same finding of guilt may not necessarily have been made.
He was actually quite critical of just about all of the parties involved in the case. He found them all a bit reckless or ‘unreliable’. They were all a bit dubious…but he found Lehrmann was not only dubious but also a ‘rapist’.
Ten and Wilkinson can consider themselves lucky. Justice Lee found Lehrmann was identifiable and therefore ‘defamed’. Had the ‘truth’ aspect failed the other parties would have been looking at a seriously large payout.
As it is the costs of this case will be extensive. Lehrmann will find he may have recovered his ‘hat’…but he will be left with little else.