Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison apologizes to former Liberal Party official Brittany Higgins, arguing that his comments are reckless and warns that criminal cases could undermine the possibility of both parties to have a fair trial. There is a constant battle for what to do.
One thing is certain, the consequences of all cases are just as disastrous. If the defendant is found guilty in a trial with questionable impartiality, he will tremble to a large number of normal families who are already nervous about protecting his son. But if he is acquitted, the cry for further changes in our legal system will be deafening.
We are pleased to demand that the Prime Minister and his colleagues apologize in Congress, at least for both reasons. How fun it is!
When discussing why the Prime Minister was wrong, it is important to clarify some issues. Legally speaking, Brittany Higgins has not yet been legally classified as a victim of this alleged crime. She gains legal status only after the alleged sexual assault has been proved in court.
Currently, in the Higgins case, she is a major witness to the rape case, which is heard in front of a jury trial in June. The case in which the defense counsel announced her client is not guilty.
Under Australian law, a person accused of a crime is not guilty until proved guilty.
We are a party to the UN Human Rights Commission, “Public agencies should refrain from harming the outcome of the trial by issuing a public statement affirming the accused’s guilt, and the media undermines the presumption of innocence. News coverage should be avoided. ” .. “
In short, a public agency like the Prime Minister who apologized to Higgins for “the terrible things that happened here” in Congress said, “The Capitol, which was supposed to be a place of security and contribution, turned out to be a nightmare.” rice field. .. “
Morrison’s words claim Higgins that he found himself naked on the minister’s couch, not after a consensual hookup, after getting drunk and returning to work late at night in the Capitol with a colleague. I strongly support it. Sexual assault.
What happened on the Defense Minister’s sofa should be the subject of an appropriate criminal trial in which the jury decides the facts.
But now, our prime minister may have blown away the possibility of fair consequences for either party.
His irresponsible behavior set the scene for the defense lawyer to apply for a permanent stay. There, the proceedings will not proceed as the defendant will be deemed unable to receive a fair hearing.
Courts are very rare to agree to such a move and will do nothing to young men involved in cases that have already been publicly named and embarrassed by the Australian media. not.
A more likely option is for the jury to be instructed to ignore the Prime Minister’s unfavorable words.
Think about it. Ordinary male and female juries are told to ignore what they hear in the media and elsewhere.
How can a jury trial of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Supreme Court forget what the Chief Executive Officer of the State said across the lake in Parliament? In this case, it is unlikely that the defendant will receive a fair trial.
At ACT, it is currently not possible to apply for a judge-only trial.
Chris Merritt It pointed out In Australia earlier this year, courts sometimes ruled that unfavorable publicity would put the proceedings against the defendant at a great disadvantage and justify the trial of the judge alone.
This happened in 2019 when former politicians Eddie Obeid and Ian McDonald were tried for years after being publicly called “corrupted” and “shameful.” ..
As the benefits explained (pdf), In that case, Judge Elizabeth Fullerton of the New South Wales (NSW) Supreme Court ordered a judge-only trial and rebuked both the Prime Minister and former NSW Prime Minister Gladys Beregkrian for public comments on the case.
Fullerton also picked up a tweet she called “journalist frenzy” about the Sydney Morning Herald’s investigative journalist Kate McClymont’s Obade a month before the trial.
On the other hand, now that the Higgins case is approaching, the enthusiasm of ridiculous journalists is in full swing.
The National Press Club is in a suspicious position and has invited Higgins to Grace Tame to speak as “a defender of the survivors of sexual assault” because it could harm her case.
Even more worrisome was the appearance of hundreds of perhaps major journalists, predominantly female and applauding, who were this important witness to the serious rape incident, even before she spoke.
Here’s how she started: “I was raped on the couch where I thought it was the safest and safest building in Australia. A workplace where police and security guards are open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The Australian parliament says if you are a woman. It’s safe, except for it. It’s safe. “
All that pleased was Australian opposition leader Anthony Albanese, who was fresh from his own heartfelt apology to Congress.
He took every opportunity to meet with Higgins and take pictures, praising her “extraordinary courage” and revealing that he was on her side.
But cynicists would say that Labor believes they are the winners and uses this young woman to reveal what they have thrown as the government’s “female problem.”
The government is paranoid about thinking that they can soothe this noisy, small activist group that dominates our media.
Perhaps the press club blunder does something to convince conservative politicians that they are simply alienating their bases by overrunning feminist politics very blatantly. prize.
For the rest of us who are observing all of this from bystanders, it simply adds to our growing conviction that male justice is under threat in this country.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.