Another triumph for our justice system.
Yesterday, a clean-cut young man walked out of an ACT court room, acquitted of all charges of the rape of a young, female army cadet.
The man – 26-year-old Royal Military College cadet Jonathan David Hibbert – was acquitted despite admitting that when his at-first willing sexual partner asked him to stop having sex with her, he did not.
More on this: Cadet found not guilty of raping a fellow cadet last Anzac Day.
He was aquitted despite admitting that when he continued, he used his own force to change her position so that he could keep going.
He was aquitted despite admitting that the young woman tried to push him off throughout the encounter.
It’s a shocking, if familiar story. This, according to the courts, is what happened that night.
PM: Misidentified Bondi Attacker Settles With Seven, National DV Rallies Planned
The Quicky
The New Sign You’re Having A Crisis
Mamamia Out LoudWhat Happened When Marian Keyes Couldn’t Write
No Filter
Top Comments
Looks like a dodgy result but you either support the presumption of innocence (which means beyond reasonable doubt not just it's more likely than not) and the jury system or you don't. Having that system means that you deliberately aim for guilty people getting off as opposed to innocent people being convicted. There are places that have the opposite balance - Japan and Singapore for instance - and they are very safe places but I'm not sure I'd want to live in a society where conviction essentially depends on the police charging you and nothing further.
As I said, a dodgy result but there was some aspects in his favour which the jury may have thought persuasive but which this article didn't mention:
- the defence suggested she concocted the rape claim to avoid a charge of fraternisation which the army generally takes quite seriously - neither of them should have been having consensual sex with each other
- it emerged that she discussed the case with one of the key witnesses after the trial started despite the judge warning them both not to
- the law is not that you have to stop immediately after consent is withdrawn, it has to happen in a 'reasonable' time period and the jury is the one to determine what this length is as a matter of fact not law.
We don't know what happened in the jury room but it could be they decided it wasn't reasonable to expect him to stop in the time or, as happens in a distressing number of rape cases, the jury simply didn't like her and decided to acquit regardless of the facts.
No, the law is that you must stop IMMEDIATELY when told to. Not after a 'reasonable' period of time, not after another 30 seconds, not after you've gone ahead and tried another position in case tthat forces them into submission, not when you decide you're ready, not when you think enough is enough, not after you've reached your climax, but IMMEDIATELY! If you continue, that is rape!
That goes for the man or the woman, if you're told to stop, you STOP right then and there. Anything else is rape, end of story.
If the result of a jury, even when that result is highly questionable, was taken as the ultimate and final truth then the prosecution (or defence) would not have option of appeal. The outcome of a trial does not mean we shouldn't question the result, or have a discussion about it in general.
Experts are welk aware of the vast number of problems with rape trials and juries, and the biases about 'real 'rape and victims that jurors walk into the courtroom with. Should researchers not try and tackle these factors that make the outcomes of sexual assault trials highly unjust and unreliable? Should we not challenge the so-called 'rape culture' in society? The same culture that leads to the unconscious and skewed biases that are carried into the courtroom?
It is this culture, these biases, and this system that discourages victims from reporting the crime and the low number of actual convictions even in cases where the evidence is very strong, and if it were any other crime the result with the same quality of evidence would be a conviction.
Furthermore, I don't think you actually understand the system in Singapore or japan to say what you have .
I'm afraid you are simply incorrect on a few legal points:
- the crime of rape of sexual assault is simply sexual penetration without consent regardless of whether consent was never given or was subsequently withdrawn, The law as written is silent on the issue of when you need to stop after consent has been withdrawn but various legal precedents make it clear that it is some point after immediately and this question is something that the jury needs to decide upon. There is no defined time such as one second, ten second etc. Personally I'm surprised that the jury found what happened to be reasonable - if indeed it was an issue in their finding - but it was a question they needed to decide upon.
- there is no right of appeal against a jury not guilty verdict as you suggest. The defence does though have the right to appeal on the grounds that a guilty verdict was unsound as a matter of law.
-Singapore conviction rates are upwards of 90% depending on the crime - if you are charged and prosecuted you are going to prison there despite the notional presumption of innocence.
Thank you for this post. In addition to what you have mentioned I had wrote several other facts which were widely reported on but MM decided not to print them. Not to mention the extremely bias reporting ( everything that she to have said very much taken as gospel) And quotes have been taking out of context to fit the narrative. Contrary to popular opinion. The majority of rape cases do result in a conviction. In the united kingdom out of 3066 cases that went to trial 2033. resulted in sentencing. The problem is that with only 5 percent of rapes being clear cut violent ones ( knife to throat, attacked in an alley. ) The vast majority fall into a grey area. The most common of which involves people in consensual acts. Often fuelled by drugs and alcohol. Like this case here. I sat one a jury once on a similar case In this instance both had induced large quantities of recreational drug and the woman had preformed acts weren't part usual sex life. In an instances like these, which are the majority. of cases. When you have two people don't know each other . Are under the influence of recreation drugs/alcohol. It was not in my opinion of not liking the woman. But without any evidence in consensual encounter with two inebriated people I see no reason to hold a man to higher responsibility.Or like in this one, where their are logical gaps, introduce a motive, and especially the witness tampering ( Why was this left out?) creates a reasonable doubt. It's doesn't mean jurors are bad people or social doesn't take these allegations seriously. All it means is that in individual cases like this one weighing up all the facts available what they believe more likely than not to be true and given how quickly the jury ruled in favour of David Hilbert it clear who version of events they found his more credible. By no means 100 percent factual. Just more likely than not.. If the posters and author are opposed to due process explained these logical gaps, motives and why witness collusion should be overlooked in necessary to do so. You cannot simply dispense with due process this isn't Iran.
You can be acquitted of a crime on a legal technicality without being proven 'innocent'. Any man who holds down a woman and continues to have sex with her when she tells him not to and tries to push him off is NOT innocent. Don't confuse acquittal with innocence.
Disgusting, shows just how little value women have if a monster can admit rape and still be found not guilty.
Old boys club at its finest.