The Lust for Power

A Pox on Both Their Houses

We commented recently upon a bizarre proposal by the Labour Party that cases of rape must take away the burden of proof from the accuser, and place it upon the shoulders of the defendant.  Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental principle of judicature which the Labour Party is willing to toss aside whimsically in order to win a few votes from the radical feminists.  The NZ Herald continues the debate over this antediluvian proposal. 

Labour's justice spokesman Andrew Little did not think the party's proposal would lead to more innocent people being convicted.  "I don't see why. You're assuming that there is a propensity to lay false complaints. There is no evidence pointing to that."

There is no evidence of a propensity to lay false complaints. What planet is Little from?  This statement beggars belief and one wonders whether Little is just fundamentally ignorant of the real world, or whether he is being deliberately obtuse for political reasons.  OK, so let's put this claim to the test: if Little were to be taken seriously and in good faith, he would be claiming that in the past fifty years there has been no evidence of any person laying false complaints of rape. 

In August 8, 2005, the NZ Herald ran the following story:

NZ Herald
August 8 2005

False rape complaints annoy police
by Nicola Boyes

Hamilton police will decide this week whether to charge two women who made separate false rape complaints at the weekend.  Detective Sergeant Nigel Keall said police spent time and resources investigating the women's complaints.  "It's just a waste of resources that could have been used elsewhere."

Both complaints were lodged on Friday. One was made by an 18-year-old and the other by a 19-year-old

Then comes the kicker:

Senior investigators estimate that between 60 and 80 per cent of rape complaints made by women are false.  Mr Keall said false complaints tainted the community's perception of sexual offending and the genuine victims who needed support.

He said there was also a difference between people making complaints of stranger rapes and making allegations against a specific person, which could sometimes be malicious.

According to Andrew Little this never happens.  There is no evidence for it.  Here is a file summarising repeated false complaints of rape.  Never happens, according to Little.  Just search under "NZ false rape complaints" to get a long list of instances of false rape complaints.

Understand this: under Little's proposals, the majority of cases such as these would have likely resulted in an erroneous conviction of rape because the defendant could not prove his or her innocence. 

But, idiotic and extreme and dangerous as Labour's proposals are, the current Government is only slightly better.  National proposes to weaken another foundation stone of our justice system--the right to silence--in cases of rape.

Fundamental pillars of the criminal justice system may be eroded whichever party wins the election this year, as both National's and Labour's proposals would look into changing the right to silence or the presumption of innocence in rape cases.  Both major parties claim the current system is not upholding justice for victims, and are looking at changes that would effectively make it easier for prosecutors to obtain convictions.

National wants to explore allowing a judge or jury to see an accused's refusal to give evidence in a negative light, while Labour wants to shift the burden of proof of consent from the alleged victim to the accused.  Auckland University law professor Warren Brookbanks said both policies challenged two fundamental principles: the right to silence, and the presumption of innocence, which are both protected in the Bill of Rights Act.

The drive to get more convictions is motivating politicians to toss fundamental protections aside. 

Of National's plan, he said: "It's an intrusion into the right to silence.  In the trial process, offenders are in any event always at a serious disadvantage relative to the prosecution, and there are some important protections in the trial process, and the right to silence is a fundamental right. These are part of our democratic rights that apply to all citizens."

The fundamental "right to silence" is to be tossed aside in the drive to get more convictions.  But why just rape?  If this new principle is fair and just, it must surely be applied to all criminal charges, not just rape.  Why put rape in a special category?   Are we to conclude that if the right to silence is tossed for allegations of rape, all other not-guilty verdicts are thereby implicitly unjust because the defendant was allowed to remain silent? 

This principle holds true: never, ever trust a politician with the responsibility faithfully to protect the liberties of citizens.  Populism will win out every time, such is the prevailing venality amongst them all.