Niall McKay wrote:
I read this article about a recent retrial of a rape case with confusion and fear (but I am not sure what I am confused and scared about)
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/07/1078594233863.html
Perhaps someone who knows a bit more about law than I do can offer some thoughts -
this guys rant is a little one-sided. (or is it?)
It certainly seems that way to me. But then, opinion pieces in the Herald often are, simply because they're mostly written by someone with a personal involvement in the issue. I don't know Sheehan's involvement, though - perhaps someone else will be able to comment on that.
Sheehan castigates Wood for "psychologically brutalising" the victim, but having been directly personally involved in the Wood Royal Commission as an abuse victim, I have a VERY different opinion of Wood. In fact, he was extremely solicitous of my emotional state prior to, during, and after giving evidence (within the bounds of not having personal contact, of course). And with regard to Sheehan's complaint about the effect of the Commission on police morale: though Wood began as the Commissioner of the entire enquiry, when it split in two - one part about police corruption and one part about corruption in other public bodies - Wood presided over the *second* part, not the first, so it seems odd to assign him primary responsibility for lowering of police morale, as Sheehan suggests.
As to the justice of their decision on this matter, I'd say that without reading the full decision (and possibly the original trial and judgement transcript as well) there's no way anyone can know whether it was a fair decision or not. And it's important to realise that Appeals only look at points of law, not evidence. This decision does NOT (indeed, can not) shake the fact that there was enough proof for a jury to believe Sheikh guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It's *possible* that though Finnane, the original judge, gave clear directions to the jury, they may have voted contrary to those, which would provide grounds for arguing that they were influenced by the media reports.
I'm the last person to argue that the court system is infallible, or that judges always make the right decisions, or that juries do, or that precedent law and the appeal system is the best way, and I feel enormous sympathy for the victim in this case, but the bottom line is really that a) a jury believed Sheikh guilty; and
b) he got off on a point of law
So it's still a form of vindication of the victim's account of what happened, though - as always - it's heartbreaking to watch someone re-traumatised when she thought it was all settled.
Clare *************************************************** Clare Pascoe Henderson http://www.clergyabuseaustralia.org Clergy Sexual Abuse in Australia Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***************************************************
------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm ------------------------------------------------------
