WEBVTT - The rape cases that ‘shouldn’t be run’

0:00:03.920 --> 0:00:06.160
<v Speaker 1>From The Australian. He is what's on the front. I'm

0:00:06.200 --> 0:00:12.959
<v Speaker 1>Claire Harvey. It's Wednesday, June seventeen, twenty twenty six. Treasurer

0:00:13.039 --> 0:00:15.920
<v Speaker 1>Barnaby Joyce. That's the hope in One Nation as it

0:00:16.000 --> 0:00:18.919
<v Speaker 1>lines up its star recruit to take on Jim Chalmers

0:00:18.960 --> 0:00:22.960
<v Speaker 1>in the shadow Treasury portfolio, and Pauline Hanson lines up

0:00:23.079 --> 0:00:27.160
<v Speaker 1>her talent. Hanson's addressing the Press Club today as she

0:00:27.280 --> 0:00:31.000
<v Speaker 1>campaigns to be taken seriously as an alternative prime minister.

0:00:33.200 --> 0:00:35.559
<v Speaker 1>A new revelation in the case of murdered five year

0:00:35.600 --> 0:00:39.120
<v Speaker 1>old girl Kumanjai Little Baby, police believed her mother was

0:00:39.159 --> 0:00:42.440
<v Speaker 1>at imminent risk of murder or serious injury from a

0:00:42.479 --> 0:00:47.040
<v Speaker 1>domestic assault in the months before the child's disappearance. The

0:00:47.080 --> 0:00:51.279
<v Speaker 1>Australians revealing today that during Little Baby's lifetime, police had

0:00:51.320 --> 0:00:55.080
<v Speaker 1>been called to reports of assaults allegedly perpetrated by her

0:00:55.160 --> 0:00:59.560
<v Speaker 1>father on more than thirty occasions. Those stories are live

0:00:59.640 --> 0:01:05.160
<v Speaker 1>now at the Australian dot com dot AU. A night

0:01:05.200 --> 0:01:08.360
<v Speaker 1>at the pub ends in an accusation of rape, and

0:01:08.440 --> 0:01:11.120
<v Speaker 1>now the woman at the center of one of Australia's

0:01:11.160 --> 0:01:15.800
<v Speaker 1>most controversial cases is turning her fury on the prosecutors,

0:01:15.959 --> 0:01:19.880
<v Speaker 1>she says, let her down. Today, our National Chief of Staff,

0:01:19.920 --> 0:01:22.600
<v Speaker 1>Ellie Dudley, is here for a close look at a

0:01:22.640 --> 0:01:34.039
<v Speaker 1>deeply human story of trust betrayed. Stay with us. Ellie

0:01:34.120 --> 0:01:37.160
<v Speaker 1>Dudley is the Australian's National Chief of Staff and she

0:01:37.319 --> 0:01:41.520
<v Speaker 1>spent several years reporting a case that's absolutely intriguing. It's

0:01:41.560 --> 0:01:44.080
<v Speaker 1>about a New South Wales woman who was at the

0:01:44.120 --> 0:01:47.400
<v Speaker 1>center of a sexual assault case. Ellie, tell me this woman.

0:01:47.440 --> 0:01:50.680
<v Speaker 1>You've given her the name Tina Styleman. What happened to Tina?

0:01:51.600 --> 0:01:56.520
<v Speaker 2>So, Tina believes that she was raped. She was overseas

0:01:56.960 --> 0:02:00.120
<v Speaker 2>and she came home one night earlier than expected, and

0:02:00.160 --> 0:02:02.360
<v Speaker 2>she was planning to meet up with her boyfriend later

0:02:02.400 --> 0:02:04.920
<v Speaker 2>that night. Before she did that, she went to a

0:02:04.920 --> 0:02:06.720
<v Speaker 2>pub and she met with a friend of hers who

0:02:06.760 --> 0:02:09.120
<v Speaker 2>she had met on Tinder a couple of years earlier.

0:02:09.480 --> 0:02:12.920
<v Speaker 2>They had had various sexual relations, but they were just friends.

0:02:13.680 --> 0:02:16.440
<v Speaker 2>She went to the pub, they had one beer, they

0:02:16.480 --> 0:02:19.160
<v Speaker 2>had a second beer, they had a third beer, and

0:02:19.200 --> 0:02:21.760
<v Speaker 2>then she doesn't remember a single thing until she woke

0:02:21.880 --> 0:02:25.880
<v Speaker 2>up in his bed a few hours later. She reported

0:02:25.880 --> 0:02:28.560
<v Speaker 2>it to the police. She went to hospital. She describes

0:02:28.560 --> 0:02:31.600
<v Speaker 2>herself as the model complainant. She told a friend about it.

0:02:31.639 --> 0:02:34.200
<v Speaker 2>She told her boyfriend about it quite quickly, and then

0:02:34.800 --> 0:02:38.880
<v Speaker 2>it went through trial. So she spent multiple years going

0:02:38.960 --> 0:02:43.400
<v Speaker 2>through the justice system to then get a not guilty verdict.

0:02:44.040 --> 0:02:47.040
<v Speaker 2>Now that not guilty verdict, a jury found quite quickly

0:02:47.080 --> 0:02:49.680
<v Speaker 2>within an hour that the man that she believes raped

0:02:49.720 --> 0:02:52.919
<v Speaker 2>her actually didn't and that was something that she came

0:02:52.960 --> 0:02:55.520
<v Speaker 2>to terms with. She understood that that was something that

0:02:55.639 --> 0:02:59.080
<v Speaker 2>could occur. But the thing that was incredibly distressing to

0:02:59.160 --> 0:03:02.919
<v Speaker 2>her was that a few weeks later, the judge in

0:03:03.000 --> 0:03:06.040
<v Speaker 2>the matter delivered a cost judgment, which is effectively saying

0:03:06.120 --> 0:03:08.480
<v Speaker 2>to the defendant, the man who she believes raped her,

0:03:08.639 --> 0:03:11.680
<v Speaker 2>the government will pay your legal bills. And in that

0:03:11.720 --> 0:03:16.760
<v Speaker 2>cost judgment he delivered a scathing rebuke of the Office

0:03:16.800 --> 0:03:19.440
<v Speaker 2>of the Director of Public Prosecutions in New South Wales

0:03:19.840 --> 0:03:23.480
<v Speaker 2>for running meritless rape cases, that is, rape cases that

0:03:23.600 --> 0:03:27.000
<v Speaker 2>never had any prospect of a conviction from the outset.

0:03:27.080 --> 0:03:29.920
<v Speaker 2>They were never going to result in a guilty verdict.

0:03:30.720 --> 0:03:34.160
<v Speaker 2>And for Dena Stehman, she went through this process. She

0:03:34.280 --> 0:03:38.280
<v Speaker 2>trusted the prosecutors. She raised them multiple times, well I

0:03:38.280 --> 0:03:41.800
<v Speaker 2>don't remember anything, I can't necessarily say that I didn't

0:03:41.800 --> 0:03:45.400
<v Speaker 2>consent because I was blacked out, and she was hoping

0:03:45.400 --> 0:03:48.000
<v Speaker 2>that they were sitting on a pile of evidence that

0:03:48.040 --> 0:03:52.760
<v Speaker 2>would prove her believed perpetrators guilt. That pile of evidence

0:03:52.840 --> 0:03:56.440
<v Speaker 2>never eventuated, and so she was instead left as a

0:03:56.480 --> 0:04:00.760
<v Speaker 2>complainant in this case that was deemed meritless by a judge.

0:04:01.360 --> 0:04:05.160
<v Speaker 1>A voice actor is reading excerpts of Tina Starhleman's interview

0:04:05.240 --> 0:04:05.720
<v Speaker 1>with Ellie.

0:04:06.680 --> 0:04:09.240
<v Speaker 2>I really felt like something else had been taken from me.

0:04:09.880 --> 0:04:11.800
<v Speaker 2>I would not have progressed the matter if I had

0:04:11.840 --> 0:04:14.360
<v Speaker 2>any idea that the prospects of success in terms of

0:04:14.360 --> 0:04:19.560
<v Speaker 2>a guilty verdict were so low. In the few years

0:04:19.560 --> 0:04:22.919
<v Speaker 2>that you've been reporting on this, this phrase meritless rape

0:04:22.920 --> 0:04:25.560
<v Speaker 2>cases has really stuck with me, and I think I'd

0:04:25.640 --> 0:04:29.640
<v Speaker 2>probably assumed that what it referred to was women or

0:04:29.760 --> 0:04:32.240
<v Speaker 2>victims who were making complaints that were vexatious, that were

0:04:32.240 --> 0:04:36.200
<v Speaker 2>clearly untrue. Your interview with Tina Stahlemlan, I think, brings

0:04:36.240 --> 0:04:40.200
<v Speaker 2>a whole new level of nuance to it. She is

0:04:40.279 --> 0:04:43.080
<v Speaker 2>so shattered by the fact that this prosecution went ahead

0:04:43.240 --> 0:04:46.760
<v Speaker 2>when it didn't have a chance of succeeding, But she

0:04:46.960 --> 0:04:50.159
<v Speaker 2>hasn't resiled from her belief.

0:04:49.960 --> 0:04:52.760
<v Speaker 1>That she did not consent to the six that happened.

0:04:53.279 --> 0:04:55.360
<v Speaker 1>What's happened in New South Wales and so many other

0:04:55.480 --> 0:04:57.520
<v Speaker 1>jurisdictions I think is that we've got used to the

0:04:57.560 --> 0:05:01.159
<v Speaker 1>idea that very drunk people cannot act actually consent to sex.

0:05:01.200 --> 0:05:06.279
<v Speaker 1>That consent has to be active and ongoing. So help

0:05:06.360 --> 0:05:11.279
<v Speaker 1>me understand here why it was meritless. She was quite drunk.

0:05:11.320 --> 0:05:13.800
<v Speaker 1>She'd had at least four drinks I think, maybe fine five.

0:05:14.880 --> 0:05:18.080
<v Speaker 1>He had had a similar number of drinks, but presumably

0:05:18.200 --> 0:05:21.200
<v Speaker 1>was not as intoxicated as her. They were in his house.

0:05:21.640 --> 0:05:23.919
<v Speaker 1>She went to the hospital straight away and got a

0:05:24.080 --> 0:05:27.680
<v Speaker 1>rape kid. Male DNA was found in her genital area

0:05:27.720 --> 0:05:31.680
<v Speaker 1>in her underwear. She had bruising on her genitals. But

0:05:31.839 --> 0:05:33.240
<v Speaker 1>what about that is meritless.

0:05:33.560 --> 0:05:36.560
<v Speaker 2>It was never a question of did they have sex.

0:05:36.839 --> 0:05:39.920
<v Speaker 2>They both agreed that they had sex. When he testified

0:05:39.960 --> 0:05:42.840
<v Speaker 2>in court, he said that she actually came on to

0:05:42.960 --> 0:05:48.359
<v Speaker 2>him quite aggressively, that she initiated the sexual intercourse. The

0:05:48.400 --> 0:05:51.120
<v Speaker 2>reason that it's meritless, or the judge found it to

0:05:51.120 --> 0:05:55.240
<v Speaker 2>be meritless, was that there actually wasn't any evidence to

0:05:55.520 --> 0:05:59.159
<v Speaker 2>prove that she didn't consent. And when I spoke to

0:05:59.200 --> 0:06:02.599
<v Speaker 2>her just recently for this article, she believes that she

0:06:02.640 --> 0:06:05.080
<v Speaker 2>didn't consent, but she can't say it for certain. The

0:06:05.120 --> 0:06:07.159
<v Speaker 2>only person she believes who will ever be able to

0:06:07.160 --> 0:06:10.680
<v Speaker 2>say if she consented or not is her believed perpetrator.

0:06:11.640 --> 0:06:13.800
<v Speaker 2>But for the judge to say that it was a

0:06:13.839 --> 0:06:16.760
<v Speaker 2>meritless rape case, what he's saying is that there isn't

0:06:16.760 --> 0:06:19.800
<v Speaker 2>any evidence besides her, Well, I think I didn't consent.

0:06:19.839 --> 0:06:22.080
<v Speaker 2>I can't say for certain because I was black out,

0:06:22.080 --> 0:06:25.480
<v Speaker 2>but I don't think I consented. There's nothing beyond that.

0:06:25.480 --> 0:06:28.120
<v Speaker 2>There was no evidence beyond that to prove that the

0:06:28.200 --> 0:06:28.760
<v Speaker 2>rape occurred.

0:06:28.880 --> 0:06:30.840
<v Speaker 1>And I guess this is the point too, because you think, well,

0:06:30.880 --> 0:06:33.480
<v Speaker 1>what evidence could there possibly be? I mean, there could

0:06:33.480 --> 0:06:36.520
<v Speaker 1>be CCTV of them leaving the pub with him dragging

0:06:36.560 --> 0:06:39.359
<v Speaker 1>her by the hand, for example, Or there could be

0:06:39.880 --> 0:06:42.800
<v Speaker 1>an eyewitness who said that she was needed to be

0:06:42.800 --> 0:06:44.839
<v Speaker 1>carried up the stairs because she was so drunk that

0:06:44.920 --> 0:06:49.440
<v Speaker 1>she couldn't walk independently. Those might be things that would

0:06:49.480 --> 0:06:52.240
<v Speaker 1>suggest that there were evidence that she didn't consent, But

0:06:52.320 --> 0:06:55.719
<v Speaker 1>in most sexual encounters, it's one person's word against another.

0:06:55.760 --> 0:06:58.240
<v Speaker 2>Isn't it totally And it's something that we've come to

0:06:58.320 --> 0:07:02.760
<v Speaker 2>terms with over the past decade or so. Rape isn't

0:07:03.080 --> 0:07:06.440
<v Speaker 2>a bad man grabbing you in an alley and forced

0:07:06.480 --> 0:07:09.720
<v Speaker 2>to have sex. That's not where most rapes occur. Most

0:07:09.800 --> 0:07:12.520
<v Speaker 2>rapes are. They're day rapes. They're sexual intercourse you didn't

0:07:12.520 --> 0:07:15.280
<v Speaker 2>consent to or didn't want to have with someone that.

0:07:15.240 --> 0:07:17.720
<v Speaker 1>You know, or you consent up to a point and

0:07:17.920 --> 0:07:19.960
<v Speaker 1>then something happens that you're not consenting too, like the

0:07:20.040 --> 0:07:21.320
<v Speaker 1>removal of a condom.

0:07:21.480 --> 0:07:23.480
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, totally. And this is something that we've seen a

0:07:23.520 --> 0:07:27.120
<v Speaker 2>wave of laws across the country of affirmative consent laws

0:07:27.120 --> 0:07:29.960
<v Speaker 2>saying that consent needs to be ongoing, it needs to

0:07:29.960 --> 0:07:33.320
<v Speaker 2>be active, and both parties need to agree to have

0:07:33.440 --> 0:07:37.160
<v Speaker 2>sex continuously throughout the sexual encounter. And that's a reaction

0:07:37.320 --> 0:07:38.480
<v Speaker 2>to cases like this.

0:07:39.720 --> 0:07:42.480
<v Speaker 1>Now the new South Wales government has answered the call,

0:07:42.880 --> 0:07:46.679
<v Speaker 1>announcing a shift to what's called an affirmative model of consent.

0:07:46.960 --> 0:07:50.480
<v Speaker 2>This is a major overhaul to sexual violence laws here

0:07:50.480 --> 0:07:51.880
<v Speaker 2>in Queensland.

0:07:51.400 --> 0:08:00.240
<v Speaker 3>Victorian government making consent classes mandatory in state schools.

0:08:01.280 --> 0:08:04.360
<v Speaker 1>So the prosecutors didn't have any third parties, saying that

0:08:04.400 --> 0:08:06.679
<v Speaker 1>they saw her being dragged up the stairs. They didn't

0:08:06.680 --> 0:08:10.000
<v Speaker 1>have evidence like that, so the critique from the judge

0:08:10.040 --> 0:08:12.480
<v Speaker 1>suggests that they should not have run this matter at all,

0:08:12.560 --> 0:08:16.000
<v Speaker 1>which makes me wonder, how are these new active consent

0:08:16.120 --> 0:08:19.880
<v Speaker 1>laws ever going to get before juries In cases where

0:08:19.880 --> 0:08:21.960
<v Speaker 1>a woman or a victim believes that they have been

0:08:22.040 --> 0:08:24.840
<v Speaker 1>raped and the elleghed perpetrator says that the sex was consensual,

0:08:25.480 --> 0:08:28.760
<v Speaker 1>victims who were drunk are probably not going to remember.

0:08:29.080 --> 0:08:33.400
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, And it's what makes sexual assault such a devastating

0:08:34.000 --> 0:08:38.800
<v Speaker 2>and challenging crime, you know, it's he said, she said.

0:08:39.400 --> 0:08:43.160
<v Speaker 2>It was interesting during the Bruce Lehmon Britney Higgins saga.

0:08:43.960 --> 0:08:46.920
<v Speaker 2>It was something where during the criminal trial we never

0:08:46.960 --> 0:08:49.559
<v Speaker 2>heard from Bruce Lehman. Bruce Lehman was the defendant and

0:08:49.559 --> 0:08:51.839
<v Speaker 2>he had a right to silence. He sat there and

0:08:51.920 --> 0:08:54.760
<v Speaker 2>didn't say anything throughout the entire trial. Brittany Higgins, however,

0:08:55.120 --> 0:08:57.920
<v Speaker 2>gave evidence as the complainant. She was torn to shreds

0:08:57.920 --> 0:09:00.439
<v Speaker 2>in the witness box, and we didn't hear anything from

0:09:00.440 --> 0:09:02.720
<v Speaker 2>Bruce Lehman until he was in the witness box for

0:09:02.760 --> 0:09:05.160
<v Speaker 2>the defamation claim that he took out against Network ten.

0:09:06.160 --> 0:09:09.440
<v Speaker 2>He claims they destroyed his life by airing the first

0:09:09.480 --> 0:09:12.320
<v Speaker 2>interview with Brittney Higgins in a case that saw him

0:09:12.440 --> 0:09:17.240
<v Speaker 2>tried but never convicted of rape. If you bring a

0:09:17.280 --> 0:09:19.720
<v Speaker 2>defamation claim, then you have to give evidence, you have

0:09:19.760 --> 0:09:23.439
<v Speaker 2>to testify, and when he started speaking, you go, oh,

0:09:23.520 --> 0:09:25.880
<v Speaker 2>hold on, a lot of his story doesn't add up,

0:09:25.920 --> 0:09:28.280
<v Speaker 2>doesn't make sense. And then ultimately a federal court judge

0:09:28.360 --> 0:09:30.800
<v Speaker 2>found on the balance of probabilities that he did rpe

0:09:30.800 --> 0:09:31.959
<v Speaker 2>Britney Higgins.

0:09:32.600 --> 0:09:36.400
<v Speaker 3>Justice, finding that not only did Bruce Lehreman write Britney

0:09:36.480 --> 0:09:39.440
<v Speaker 3>Higgins in Parliament House, but that he would have got

0:09:39.480 --> 0:09:42.679
<v Speaker 3>away with it if he hadn't soon network ten for defamation.

0:09:43.760 --> 0:09:46.880
<v Speaker 2>And I think that illustrates that he said she said

0:09:47.280 --> 0:09:50.600
<v Speaker 2>so well. In the case of Tina Staleman, her alleged

0:09:50.880 --> 0:09:54.240
<v Speaker 2>perpetrator did give evidence. But in a lot of these

0:09:54.280 --> 0:09:57.319
<v Speaker 2>cases you don't even hear from one side of the matter.

0:09:57.520 --> 0:09:59.400
<v Speaker 2>Not to say that they should. The right to silence

0:09:59.440 --> 0:10:02.360
<v Speaker 2>is an incredible important part of our justice system, but

0:10:02.800 --> 0:10:05.920
<v Speaker 2>they're challenging their complex and I don't think it's ever

0:10:05.960 --> 0:10:09.080
<v Speaker 2>really been nailed of how you get justice in these situations.

0:10:09.200 --> 0:10:12.480
<v Speaker 1>It is very reminiscent of the Bruce Lemon Brittany Higgins situation.

0:10:13.000 --> 0:10:16.640
<v Speaker 3>They were shocking allegations which rocked Parliament House, but tonight

0:10:17.080 --> 0:10:18.080
<v Speaker 3>sexual assault.

0:10:18.120 --> 0:10:20.600
<v Speaker 1>Of course, Bruce Lemon was not convicted in the set

0:10:20.720 --> 0:10:24.120
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court. The jury was dismissed after a jura was

0:10:24.160 --> 0:10:27.800
<v Speaker 1>found bringing research materials into the jury room. The prosecutors

0:10:27.800 --> 0:10:30.720
<v Speaker 1>decided not to rerun that case. Bruce Lamon, of course,

0:10:30.720 --> 0:10:34.760
<v Speaker 1>has always denied any wrongdoing despite having lost that defamation case.

0:10:35.400 --> 0:10:38.120
<v Speaker 1>But on the balance of probabilities, just as Michael Lee

0:10:38.320 --> 0:10:42.040
<v Speaker 1>found that Brittany Higgins was very, very drunk, he wasn't

0:10:42.280 --> 0:10:45.480
<v Speaker 1>sure whether she had said no on a loop, which

0:10:45.480 --> 0:10:48.320
<v Speaker 1>is what she claimed, but really he found that she

0:10:48.360 --> 0:10:51.280
<v Speaker 1>was too drunk to consent, and that Bruce Lamon knew that.

0:10:51.280 --> 0:10:54.199
<v Speaker 1>That makes me wonder is on the balance of probabilities

0:10:54.200 --> 0:10:55.760
<v Speaker 1>the only way you're ever going to get a conviction

0:10:55.840 --> 0:10:56.560
<v Speaker 1>in a case like this.

0:10:56.920 --> 0:11:00.720
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, And that's what's so interesting about that case specimically

0:11:00.960 --> 0:11:03.319
<v Speaker 2>is that I think for a lot of people there

0:11:03.400 --> 0:11:06.000
<v Speaker 2>was a sense of vindication when Justice Lee handed down

0:11:06.520 --> 0:11:10.600
<v Speaker 2>his judgment because there was finally an answer. But yeah,

0:11:10.960 --> 0:11:13.360
<v Speaker 2>I actually don't know what the solution.

0:11:13.240 --> 0:11:24.559
<v Speaker 1>Is In the Tenna styleman matter. Paul Tyler be accused.

0:11:24.559 --> 0:11:26.720
<v Speaker 1>That's the pseudonym you've given him, because of course we

0:11:26.760 --> 0:11:30.640
<v Speaker 1>can't reveal their real identities, denied any wrongdoing, pleaded not guilty,

0:11:30.640 --> 0:11:33.280
<v Speaker 1>and was found not guilty by a jury, as you say,

0:11:33.280 --> 0:11:36.800
<v Speaker 1>in just one hour. But it's a horrendous ordeal to

0:11:36.880 --> 0:11:39.760
<v Speaker 1>go through being charged with a criminal offense, especially something

0:11:39.840 --> 0:11:43.000
<v Speaker 1>like that. It would have had lifelong impacts on him.

0:11:43.240 --> 0:11:45.760
<v Speaker 1>And that's part of the critique of the judge. Isn't

0:11:45.760 --> 0:11:48.840
<v Speaker 1>it that it's on the DPP to only run prosecutions

0:11:48.840 --> 0:11:52.360
<v Speaker 1>where there is a reasonable chance of conviction, because otherwise

0:11:52.440 --> 0:11:55.640
<v Speaker 1>you're destroying two lives, creating false hope in the complainant

0:11:56.040 --> 0:11:59.240
<v Speaker 1>and creating a shadow of guilt over the accused. As

0:11:59.240 --> 0:12:02.559
<v Speaker 1>you mentioned, I've been on these cases, on cases.

0:12:02.200 --> 0:12:02.400
<v Speaker 3>You know.

0:12:02.480 --> 0:12:05.400
<v Speaker 2>I think we've had six judges maybe more who have

0:12:05.480 --> 0:12:08.079
<v Speaker 2>criticized the New South Wales Office of the Director of

0:12:08.120 --> 0:12:12.160
<v Speaker 2>Public Prosecutions from running these so called meritless rape cases,

0:12:12.240 --> 0:12:15.800
<v Speaker 2>and those judges have criticized them. I've spoken to defendants,

0:12:15.840 --> 0:12:18.640
<v Speaker 2>so men who believe that they were wrongfully accused. I've

0:12:18.640 --> 0:12:21.880
<v Speaker 2>spoken and interviewed them. I've spoken to solicitors I've spoken

0:12:21.920 --> 0:12:24.720
<v Speaker 2>to barristers, but this is the first time that we

0:12:24.760 --> 0:12:27.280
<v Speaker 2>heard from a complainant. And I think what this story

0:12:27.320 --> 0:12:29.320
<v Speaker 2>does is that it sheds a light on the fact

0:12:29.440 --> 0:12:31.320
<v Speaker 2>that there is a woman most of the time, a

0:12:31.360 --> 0:12:33.840
<v Speaker 2>woman at the center of these cases who has been

0:12:33.880 --> 0:12:38.160
<v Speaker 2>given false hope, is believing that she's going to get justice,

0:12:39.000 --> 0:12:44.680
<v Speaker 2>is dragged through the criminal trial system, is giving evidence,

0:12:44.679 --> 0:12:46.920
<v Speaker 2>in this instance, giving evidence in the same building that

0:12:46.960 --> 0:12:49.199
<v Speaker 2>her alleged believed perpetrator was.

0:12:49.160 --> 0:12:52.720
<v Speaker 1>In and getting rigorously cross examined, no doubt by his counsel,

0:12:52.760 --> 0:12:54.040
<v Speaker 1>which of course is the way it goes.

0:12:54.120 --> 0:12:58.040
<v Speaker 2>Absolutely being put to her that she aggressively initiated oral

0:12:58.120 --> 0:13:01.319
<v Speaker 2>sex with the man that she believes raped, only to

0:13:01.360 --> 0:13:02.880
<v Speaker 2>then come out the other end and say, well, it

0:13:02.920 --> 0:13:04.880
<v Speaker 2>was all for nothing and never should have gone to trial.

0:13:05.160 --> 0:13:06.200
<v Speaker 1>It's a terrible story.

0:13:08.400 --> 0:13:12.080
<v Speaker 2>It's an excruciating experience. I'm not certain. I don't think

0:13:12.120 --> 0:13:13.559
<v Speaker 2>it was ever put to me that I was just

0:13:13.800 --> 0:13:16.600
<v Speaker 2>lying because of my lack of memory. It was put

0:13:16.640 --> 0:13:19.240
<v Speaker 2>to me that I'd been mistaken, that I'd engaged in

0:13:19.240 --> 0:13:20.520
<v Speaker 2>a consensual interaction.

0:13:23.200 --> 0:13:26.640
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, it's really really tough. Well done on winning her trust.

0:13:27.200 --> 0:13:31.280
<v Speaker 1>Of course, you anonymized her identity, but it's still a

0:13:31.320 --> 0:13:34.080
<v Speaker 1>lot to tell this story at all. She didn't have

0:13:34.160 --> 0:13:36.040
<v Speaker 1>to do that. What do you think made her want

0:13:36.080 --> 0:13:37.839
<v Speaker 1>to talk Frustration?

0:13:38.240 --> 0:13:42.400
<v Speaker 2>Probably she I think was frustrated by the fact that

0:13:42.720 --> 0:13:45.280
<v Speaker 2>there would be people in the community who would perceive

0:13:46.000 --> 0:13:51.439
<v Speaker 2>the Prosecution Office of being brave for running sexual assault

0:13:51.480 --> 0:13:54.319
<v Speaker 2>trials that may not have enough evidence but might get there.

0:13:54.360 --> 0:13:58.040
<v Speaker 2>Who knows. She says, it's not brave. It's been cavalier,

0:13:58.440 --> 0:14:01.719
<v Speaker 2>and it's been cavalier with her hopes. It's been cavalier

0:14:01.840 --> 0:14:05.840
<v Speaker 2>with public resources, but it's been cavalier with the justice system,

0:14:06.000 --> 0:14:08.040
<v Speaker 2>which is something that we hold as such a central

0:14:08.080 --> 0:14:12.160
<v Speaker 2>tenet of our society. The narrative has become far too

0:14:12.200 --> 0:14:15.800
<v Speaker 2>simplistic that it's about being misunderstood, or that the DPP

0:14:16.040 --> 0:14:18.360
<v Speaker 2>is being brave in some way by taking matters to

0:14:18.440 --> 0:14:21.960
<v Speaker 2>trial that should not go to trial. That is not bravery.

0:14:22.520 --> 0:14:25.360
<v Speaker 2>That is a squandering of public resources and just being

0:14:25.440 --> 0:14:29.040
<v Speaker 2>cavalier with people's hopes. If I had my time over,

0:14:29.400 --> 0:14:32.680
<v Speaker 2>I would make a sexual assault Reporting Option report, which

0:14:32.720 --> 0:14:36.120
<v Speaker 2>is the anonymous online report. I would not participate in

0:14:36.160 --> 0:14:36.800
<v Speaker 2>a prosecution.

0:14:39.600 --> 0:14:41.360
<v Speaker 1>Do you think the DPP in New South Wales has

0:14:41.400 --> 0:14:43.680
<v Speaker 1>changed its ways as a result of this controversy.

0:14:43.960 --> 0:14:46.400
<v Speaker 2>Well, the other interesting thing about Tina's case is that

0:14:46.440 --> 0:14:49.560
<v Speaker 2>it was her case that sparked a statewide audit of

0:14:49.640 --> 0:14:53.520
<v Speaker 2>sexual assault cases. So the ODPP did an internal audit

0:14:53.560 --> 0:14:56.880
<v Speaker 2>they run it themselves, where they looked at four hundred

0:14:57.080 --> 0:14:59.560
<v Speaker 2>or so sexual assault cases that were currently before the

0:14:59.600 --> 0:15:03.120
<v Speaker 2>courts to see if they had prospects of success. I

0:15:03.160 --> 0:15:05.080
<v Speaker 2>think there was a dozen or so that were thrown

0:15:05.120 --> 0:15:08.160
<v Speaker 2>out as a result of that audit. And we should

0:15:08.200 --> 0:15:11.320
<v Speaker 2>say that the Office and its director, Sally Dowling, have

0:15:11.440 --> 0:15:14.160
<v Speaker 2>always maintained that this isn't an issue, this isn't a thing,

0:15:14.640 --> 0:15:17.840
<v Speaker 2>and they have taken two judges, including the one in

0:15:17.920 --> 0:15:21.520
<v Speaker 2>Tina Stalman's case, to the Judicial Commission and have had

0:15:21.680 --> 0:15:24.880
<v Speaker 2>wins in the Judicial Commission for saying that the criticism

0:15:24.920 --> 0:15:27.840
<v Speaker 2>of the judges for claiming that these cases were meritless

0:15:27.920 --> 0:15:30.520
<v Speaker 2>were baseless. But what I not through my reporting is

0:15:30.520 --> 0:15:32.160
<v Speaker 2>that I've spoken to a lot of people who have

0:15:32.200 --> 0:15:35.920
<v Speaker 2>been impacted by these cases and they've had their lives

0:15:35.960 --> 0:15:38.840
<v Speaker 2>really changed by some of these prosecutions.

0:15:42.800 --> 0:15:50.320
<v Speaker 1>Ellie Dudley, thank you very much. Thank you, Ellie Dudley

0:15:50.400 --> 0:15:53.600
<v Speaker 1>is The Australian's National Chief of Staff. The names of

0:15:53.640 --> 0:15:57.280
<v Speaker 1>the complainant and the accused in this story have been changed.

0:15:58.080 --> 0:16:00.480
<v Speaker 1>You can read Ellie's work and all our average of

0:16:00.560 --> 0:16:04.080
<v Speaker 1>courts and legal affairs right now at the Australian dot

0:16:04.080 --> 0:16:04.920
<v Speaker 1>com dot au