Commentary
Integral to the integrity of our society, based as it is on the rule of law, is the behaviour and competence of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
Revelations and accusations about the behaviour of the Australian Capital Territory’s DPP should send alarm bells ringing for all Australians.
His behaviour and professionalism have come under some close scrutiny at a special inquiry being undertaken by a retired judge in the aftermath of the criminal proceedings instituted based on allegations made by a former parliamentary staffer against a former colleague alleging the heinous crime of rape.
One of the strengths of our legal system, based on the rule of law, is that a person is deemed to be innocent until proven guilty according to the law. And so, it needs to be with the DPP from the Australian Capital Territory (ACT).
We should not jump to conclusions or engage in mob justice. Nevertheless, the evidence to date, as openly reported, is of great concern.
The role of the DPP is to be the independent arbiter as to whether a matter ought to proceed to prosecution, given the totality and strength of the evidence and the likelihood of conviction.
Evidence known to the DPP which might be beneficial to the defence case needs to be provided to the defence.
Such are some of our Australian legal system’s niceties which have evolved over centuries and given us a fair and sophisticated legal system. Just one of the hallmarks of our wonderful and fair society.
It is fundamental to the well-being of Australian society. It protects us all. The integrity of our legal system, which we inherited from the United Kingdom, is worth protecting and fostering.
This makes the current allegations so very concerning as they strike at the very heart of our criminal justice system.
Process All Messed Up
The suggestion, as diarised at the time by the ACT’s manager of criminal investigations, Detective Scott Moeller, that there was too much political interference in bringing the case to prosecution is extremely worrying.
This is so especially in the light of the difficulties in the prosecution case where the complainant had failed to cooperate with the investigation as may have been expected, like providing her mobile phone or where it became apparent that the complainant had deliberately deleted messages from a second phone.
The holding of a press conference by the DPP to announce the withdrawal of the charges and stating that he was confident about the case but needed to withdraw for the complainant’s mental health left the accused deemed guilty rather than to which he was entitled, namely innocent.
And since when did we adopt the American circus of DPPs holding media conferences?
The temptation to weaponise the criminal process is tantalising and, for some, is too great a temptation.
Sensational reporting that a matter or person has been referred to the police or a corruption commission makes for bold front-page headlines. Reputations can be damaged, careers irreparably damaged, while an accuser bears no responsibility.
Public Confidence Undermined
In the ACT, the home of Australia’s federal parliament, the allegation of rape occurring in Parliament House was always going to be a story for salacious headlines and prejudicial judgements.
The media bandwagon got into the act with lightning speed, taking the side of the accuser, with parliamentary apologies, media hosts “exposing” the workplace culture with calls for the Sex Discrimination Commissioner to analyse the allegedly toxic culture in Australia’s Parliament House.
When the trial had to be aborted, and talk of a retrial commenced, which was subsequently abandoned, the defence team started taking aim at the DPP in what at first light seemed inappropriate.
As more and more assertions and allegations were made, it became apparent that things had gone wrong, and badly so.
In short, the inquiry instigated to determine these matters was vital to enable public confidence in the criminal legal system. The evidence thus far suggests police had provided evidentiary material to the DPP, which might have suggested a different course of action than the one taken at first.
The public/media pressure to prosecute was strong. It appears to some that that pressure led to a prosecution being brought when it should not have been brought.
The role of the DPP is to methodically and calmly determine the evidence according to established legal principles and not to be swayed by personal biases, desire for notoriety or pressure from the baying mob.
It is a highly responsible task. The fate of peoples’ lives is in the remit of the DPP’s decision-making. The seriousness and onerous nature of a DPP’s role cannot be overstated.
The role of the DPP properly executed protects us all from frivolous weaponised prosecutions and baying mobs.
The revelations at the hearings to date are devastating and undermine public confidence in one of our very important institutions, the DPP. Our highly regarded criminal justice system is what sets us apart from dictatorships. We need to protect it at every level.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
