By Ugur Nedim and Emma Starr
A promising young rugby union player faces a jury trial on charges that he exchanged sexually explicit images and engaged in sexual acts with two underage girls.
Prosecutors allege that the former rugby union player, now 23, had sexual intercourse four times between the ages of 19 and 20, and that he sexually touched the girls – aged between 14 and 15 – and sent them intimate images during the period in question.
The man has pleaded not guilty to all charges and vehemently denies the allegations.
He is considered innocent as long as the prosecution cannot prove the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.
In court
During the trial, which is taking place in the Downing Centre District Court this week, a recorded interview was played with one of the plaintiffs in which she claims that a man, then 19, had oral, anal and digital sex with her at his parents’ home in Allambie Heights on Sydney’s northern beaches when she was 14.
During cross-examination, the defendant’s defense attorney explained to the girl that physical contact between the two was limited to hugging and that “nothing sexual occurred in that room.”
The girl answered “wrong” and insisted that sexual relations had indeed taken place.
The lawyer went on to say that her client had made it clear that he did not want to continue the relationship because he “did not want to ruin his career.” The plaintiff said she could not remember such a conversation taking place.
It is further alleged that the defendant, aged 20, put his hand down the trousers of a 15-year-old girl while they were sitting in his car at Dee Why Beach.
The process continues.
Mud sticks
The allegations against the young man have all but destroyed his promising career as a rugby union player, damaged his reputation with family, friends, former colleagues and society at large, and, whether or not he is ultimately found not guilty, will haunt him for many years to come, if not forever, as his name and image will be plastered all over the internet.
With the spread of the Internet, the saying “yesterday’s newspaper is today’s trash” is no longer true. Quite the opposite. Internet reporting is constant and unfortunately, news of a person being accused of a crime and being brought to trial is often displayed much more prominently and stays in people’s minds much longer than news of an acquittal.
And even if news of an acquittal spreads widely, there will still be skeptics. They believe the defendant evaded justice by having good legal representation, or they found a loophole in the law. Or they simply believe that the burden of proof in a criminal case – beyond a reasonable doubt – is too high.
But, particularly in cases of a sexual nature, it is important to remember that recent changes to sexual consent laws – including laws requiring explicit consent – and the legal instructions that judges must give to juries at the end of sex crimes trials, make it much easier for defendants to obtain a conviction.
In fact, many believe they go too far and risk innocent people being convicted of these crimes.
And, of course, publishing the names and photographs of defendants without them having pleaded guilty or been found guilty has the potential to effectively undermine the presumption of innocence.
Should the data of defendants be published before their conviction?
The devastating impact of publishing an accused’s personal information before he or she pleads guilty to or is found guilty of an offence, and the associated undermining of the presumption of innocence, has led to calls for the practice to be banned in New South Wales, at least in relation to particularly damaging allegations such as sexual offences.
In fact, in South Australia it is an offence to publish the identity of a person accused or to be charged with a sexual offence unless the person consents to the publication.
The ban extends to names, addresses, pictures and any other information that would reasonably lead to identification. Violations of this rule can result in fines of up to $10,000 and criminal conviction for individuals, and up to $120,000 for companies.
And several countries around the world, including Japan and some Scandinavian countries, go a step further and prohibit the publication of personal data about defendants in criminal proceedings until a conviction is made.
The potentially lifelong devastation suffered by countless suspects who are ultimately never charged with a crime – such as the tradesman whom the police tried to frame for the murder of William Tyrell – or who are charged and subsequently acquitted, lends great credence to the argument that the practices of sensationalist and often unscrupulous media companies and all other publishers are capable of destroying the reputations and ambitions of those who are never found guilty of an alleged crime.
The implementation of such a rule in our state would actually help slow the restriction of the principle that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
