Parliament House sexual assault and harassment allegations

[David]

Interestingly, there are some claims here that a police investigation and court case are not off the cards:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... parliament

Geoffrey Watson, a barrister and director of the Centre for Public Integrity, has also called for an independent inquiry but told Guardian Australia that if the complainant made reliable statements about the alleged crime, then a “police prosecution is not out of the question”.

Stephen Charles, a former judge of the Victorian supreme court of appeal, said it was “not true” the alleged victim’s death meant a trial was not possible.

Charles said there were “various ways” prosecutors could attempt to establish that sex without consent had taken place, including circumstantial evidence, the behaviour of the accused, any potential admissions the cabinet minister may have made to others, and observations of other witnesses.

Probably still a long shot for any conviction to result, though.

The only thing that has conclusively emerged, and will conclusively emerge, is that a woman with mental health issues accused a minister of raping her over 30 years ago has committed suicide.

If the person accused was not a minister it would be a non story.

Well, I think it's fair to say that it'd be a story if the accused had been anyone famous (or the accuser, for that matter).

Is there a source for your claim that she had "mental health issues", by the way? Or are you just presuming that on account of her suicide?

[stui magpie]

That very much depends upon the content of the allegations and their plausibility. There is little prospect of a criminal conviction but that's not all that's at issue here. One might (depending upon the circumstances) still form the view that it was more likely than not that the complainant was telling the truth.

Maybe, but you should also be applying the Briginshaw Principle.

Without an admission or other evidence, the prospect of finding in favour of the complainant would be slim, at best.

[5 from the wing on debut]

Yes, I am.

Of course a police prosecution is still possible, but it is more likely that I will be bitten by a shark when I walk out of my office and go for a stroll down Collins Street.

[Pies4shaw]

That very much depends upon the content of the allegations and their plausibility. There is little prospect of a criminal conviction but that's not all that's at issue here. One might (depending upon the circumstances) still form the view that it was more likely than not that the complainant was telling the truth.

Maybe, but you should also be applying the Briginshaw Principle.

Without an admission or other evidence, the prospect of finding in favour of the complainant would be slim, at best.

The Briginshaw principle. Ho ho ho.

[David]

[stui magpie]

That very much depends upon the content of the allegations and their plausibility. There is little prospect of a criminal conviction but that's not all that's at issue here. One might (depending upon the circumstances) still form the view that it was more likely than not that the complainant was telling the truth.

Maybe, but you should also be applying the Briginshaw Principle.

Without an admission or other evidence, the prospect of finding in favour of the complainant would be slim, at best.

The Briginshaw principle. Ho ho ho.

If that's your audition for the role of Santa you need to try much harder.

[5 from the wing on debut]

[watt price tully]

[5 from the wing on debut]

Assume there is to be an investigation and you are to run it.
Tell us how that investigation would work. Who would you talk to? What would you ask them? What result would you hope to achieve?

[watt price tully]

Assume there is to be an investigation and you are to run it.
Tell us how that investigation would work. Who would you talk to? What would you ask them? What result would you hope to achieve?

I’d use the processes used in the Dyson Heydon investigation but leave that to the experts. I think the comments by Josh Bernstein and the public ethics people indicate what’s needed and why are instructive.

It also goes to accountability in Government.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... t-minister

[stui magpie]

Accountability my arse, it's all an exercise in perception management.

There were 2 people who knew what happened, 1 of them is now dead.

There's no witnesses to interview, just some written submissions to read and ask the question of the accused, which has essentially been done. Just not transparently and publicly.

[Pies4shaw]

There are 16 blokes in Cabinet. One of them is an alleged rapist. It isn't a good look. You can call it "perception management" if you like - but all political controversies are about "perception management". In this instance, that's just a label for "crippling political problem that could completely undermine public confidence in a government with a wafer-thin majority".

[think positive]

It must be unnerving for the women at the table, Im Assuming there is some. This is the problem with charges when 1 party is dead, harder get both sides of the story. For the victims, getting a judgment eventually I’m sure is a relief at least, if you were wrongly accused it would be bloody hard to prove. Most of the big cases other victims have come forward, was there any other complaints made? Hard when it was in an era where women probably never felt welcome at work. Human nature has such a tatty history.

[David]

There were 2 people who knew what happened, 1 of them is now dead.

There's no witnesses to interview, just some written submissions to read and ask the question of the accused, which has essentially been done. Just not transparently and publicly.

If you needed a living victim in all cases, no murder or manslaughter that doesn't occur in public would ever be prosecuted. But that's not the case, and it's not necessarily the case for crimes like this, either.

For instance, the minister denies the rape, but that doesn't mean questions can't be asked and some truth can't emerge. Did he know the woman in question? Did he have sex with her? Did people see them go off together? Where was he on the night in question? Does he have an alibi? etc. It may not be possible to prove 100% that he committed the rape in any circumstance, but if he gets caught out in a lie, that might well suggest that he's trying to hide something, and increase the likelihood of him being found guilty. So I wouldn't say an investigation is a fruitless endeavour.

[5 from the wing on debut]

Assume there is to be an investigation and you are to run it.
Tell us how that investigation would work. Who would you talk to? What would you ask them? What result would you hope to achieve?

I’d use the processes used in the Dyson Heydon investigation but leave that to the experts. I think the comments by Josh Bernstein and the public ethics people indicate what’s needed and why are instructive.

It also goes to accountability in Government.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... t-minister

That really doesn't answer my question, or take things any further. The point I was making is that an investigation will not achieve anything.

The article that you have quoted is of no value. It is a political statement, not a legal commentary. Look at the people supporting the investigation and their links to the ALP. None of them actually specify how an investigation would work. That's because they know it won't, but in a publication like The Guardian you don't have to let the facts get in your way, they have a target readership market and they market their product towards what those people want to hear. That's the way business and now media works.

The Dyson Heydon references are irrelevant to this case. There were 6 complainants in that instance who could take part. There is not one complainant in this case who can take part. As I understand it the complainant's family do not want this issue pursued, but the complainant's friends (recent or from 88?) do. That could mean many things.

The only decision to be made is whether the accused minister is outed. Shorten outed himself, that was his choice. Biden was outed in relation to his sexual assault allegation but just denied it. It's the current accused's choice too.Even if he outs himself and denies it, he is in a difficult position. I assume that it will somehow "leak" out and he will have to deny it.