Another attack on the presumption of innocence

Queensland’s Attorney-General Shannon Fentiman’s announcement that accused rapists will no longer have a right to anonymity until their case is moved from the Magistrates Court to the ‘Judge and Jury’ District Court is another attack on the presumption of innocence of Queenslanders charged with sexual offences.

Civil Liberties Council Vice-President and accredited criminal law specialist Terry O’Gorman said the Attorney-General is simply wrong to describe this protection to accused persons as based on a rape myth that “women come forward and make up complaints”.

The justification for this long held right is based on the harsh reality that men faced with rape allegations still carry the terrible stigma of being labelled a rapist even if the Prosecution case is thrown out at preliminary (committal) proceedings in the Magistrates Court, Mr O’Gorman said.

Mr O’Gorman said that for the Attorney-General to argue that under the changed laws “accused rapists would no longer be protected or treated differently to every other criminal” shows how little weight the Attorney-General and the Palaszczuk government attach to the presumption of innocence in sexual cases.

“Where in the Attorney-General’s language is the phrase the ‘alleged’ rapist?  The language used by the State’s top Law Officer drips with the presumption of guilt”, Mr O’Gorman said.

Mr O’Gorman said the fact that Queensland and the Northern Territory are the only jurisdictions that give the anonymity protection to accused rapists until their cases leave the Magistrates Court proceeds on the dubious assumption that the law in the majority of other Australian States and Territories is right and is working fairly when recent developments in the UK argued for enhancing moves to protect the identity of a person accused of rape until the case is placed before a Judge and Jury court.

The UK case of the veteran entertainer Sir Cliff Richard wrongly accused of abusing a teenage boy in the 1980s highlights the reason why the law needs to be maintained that a person accused of sexual offences should not be named until at least their case is before a Judge and Jury court and arguably until they are convicted, Mr O’Gorman said.

Sir Cliff Richard aged 81 was falsely accused of abusing a teenage boy in the 1980s and the fact of that accusation was attended by huge media attention.  In a Channel 4 documentary aired in August of this year Sir Cliff Richard revealed that he will ‘never get over’ the false accusation that he abused a teenage boy in the 1980s.

The case against Sir Cliff Richard collapsed and he sued the BBC over its coverage receiving over $300k in damages and he also got a $500k settlement from South Yorkshire Police which investigated the original allegation[

“The fact that people who complain that they are the victims of sexual offences are given lifelong anonymity and under the Attorney-General’s proposal people merely accused of such offences will be named shows how the balance between protecting the rights of the accuser and the accused is being so wrongly and unfairly skewed towards the accuser”, Mr O’Gorman said.

[1] See UK Daily Mail 21/08/2022