0 Here comes the back-down

Labour appears to be backing away from its proposal to reverse the burden of proof on consent in rape cases; Newstalk ZB reports:

A case of Andrew Little thinking out loud.
Labour's downplaying its justice spokesman's proposal to shift the burden of proof in rape cases.
The party wants the Law Commission to consider a shift to an inquisitorial system - to make courtrooms less combative for alleged victims of sexual assault.
Mr Little's suggested the defence should have to show there was consent, to prove the accused's innocence.
But leader David Cunliffe says Labour will await expert advice on the idea.
"I think he was saying what I've been saying which is that it is a matter for the Law Commission.
"There's a range of options on the table.
"One possibility could be - dot, dot, dot." 

David Cunliffe has obviously been holding his finger up to the winds of public opinion on this important issue. He's know starting to back away from what Andrew Little was proposing with no ambiguity whatsoever up until Tuesday.

This is vintage Labour Party policy-making on the hoof. Announce something, then back away from it when you get an adverse reaction. That is no way for Labour to be demonstrating that the party is a credible alternative government-in-waiting.

It reminds us of the infamous Groucho Marx quote:

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.

We're pleased that David Cunliffe has seen sense, and will not be going ahead with this proposal, for now, anyway. But the mere fact that it was raised at all suggests an absence of good judgment on the part of Labour's MPs.

0 Idiot/Savant on the presumption of innocence

Every now and again the planets align in such a way that we agree with something Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn has written.

Today is one of those days. Under the heading Time to defend the presumption of innocence Idiot/Savant blogs:

I accept that rape cases are difficult to prove. This change will make them remarkably easier. If Labour gets its way, there will be a lot more convictions for rape. And a lot more of them will be of innocent people. We presume innocence because we believe it is far better for the guilty to go free than for the innocent to be punished. Labour clearly does not believe that any more.

A party which does not believe in and will not defend the presumption of innocence does not deserve your vote. All they deserve is your contempt. If they retain this policy, you should not vote Labour.

In its haste to appeal to female voters, Labour has overreacted. The policy proposed by Andrew Little will create far more legal problems than it will solve, and it highly likely to result in innocent people being jailed. 

In the meantime, it will be interesting to hear what other parties, and especially the Green Party think of Andrew Little and Labour's proposal. There may yet be other parties to add to Idiot/Savant's "do not vote for" list.

0 Is Labour proposing reversing the burden of proof?

DPF blogs:

This is a major policy by Labour, that has had very little attention. It is now Labour Party policy that you have to prove your innocence if accused of rape.
Andrew Little said on the 2nd of July:

“A better measure would be to hand control of all examination of a victim to the judge with lawyers for both sides notifying the court which issues they want dealt with, along with shifting the burden of proof on the issue of consent to the defence.

This means that if two people have sex, and one person accuses the other of rape, then the accused must prove beyond reasonable doubt they had consent.
Now you might think this is just Andrew Little musing aloud. Not so.  He confirms in this tweet it is official policy.

The post then goes on to say this:

Andrew Little says:

“This approach does not contradict the fundamental principle that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty – the basic facts of the case still have to be made out – but it does mean the prosecution doesn’t need to prove a negative, namely that there was no consent.

This is sophistry. If the act of sex is not disputed, just consent, then the defendant does have to prove themselves innocent.
I wonder how many hours it will take until Labour does a u-turn on their policy, once people realise its implications.
Rape is a terrible crime, and the court process is very hard on many victims, and I am sure it can be improved. But reversing the presumption of innocence and burden of proof is not the answer.

We agree with DPF; rape is abhorrent. A close family member was a rape victim a number of years ago, so this is an issue we have particularly strong feelings about.

The judicial system is far from perfect for the victims of sexual abuse and rape. But we are sure there are other ways to improve the system than by reversing the burden of proof, and requiring alleged offenders to prove their innocence if an allegation is made against them.

If this is indeed official Labour Party policy, and not just a kite-flying exercise by Andrew Little it is one occasion where a policy u-turn would be welcomed, and most certainly not mocked by this blog. 

John Mortimer's fictional but lifelike character Horace Rumpole refers to the presumption of innocence as the "golden thread" of the criminal justice system. Whatever changes are made within the system to make it better for the victims of sexual offences, reversing the burden of proof should not be one of them, and any suggestions of that must be vigorously opposed.