John Marsden again

The reputation rapists at large - Opinion - smh.com.au

Mike Carlton comes to John Marden's defence in the Sydney Morning Herald today. He says (of the successful criminal injuries compensation case):

[Judge]Taylor did not find that Marsden had abused anybody, let alone the eight-year-old boy. He came to no such conclusion.

This was a civil case - not a criminal trial with rules of evidence, cross-examination and a jury - in which a man, referred to as "F", had sought money from the Victims Compensation Tribunal for sexual abuse he claimed to have suffered as a child in the '60s.

The tribunal had turned him down. In 2001, F appealed before Taylor in the District Court. There was general medical and specialist psychiatric evidence to support his case. The judge accepted that evidence, found that F had been sexually assaulted, and awarded compensation of $40,000.

But at no stage during the hearing, nor in Taylor's written judgement of July 6, 2001, was any offender or alleged offender named. The word "Marsden" never appeared. Despite the emphatic assertions of Hicks and Fife-Yeomans, it did not happen. Not verbally. Not in print - I have read the judgement. There was no laying of guilt.

For some extracts from the initial report, see my previous post here.

There's something fishy about this, I think. While Carlton is presumably correct about what the judgement says, he seems to be suggesting that in the whole process of making this claim Marsden's name was not brought up. But that surely can't be correct, can it? When a victim makes a claim for compensation in New South Wales, he or she does not have to name the alleged offender? For that matter, if they fail, why is the name not mentioned in the appeal?

Also, I am pretty sure that the original report about this (the link is now dead) said that the successful victim claims he was warned off proceeding with a criminal case by Marsden. (Behaviour which would not be inconsistent with what happened in the defamation action. But then again it might be a recent invention based on the reporting of the defamation case.)

I would love to see a more detailed explanation of what happened in this victim's case. Will the ABC, which pursues other controversial legal cases, take this on in a documentary? (I think it deserves more than a 30 minute Australian Story, though.)

I am also surprised that journalist David Marr has not taken this on. He must have known Marsden, surely, and be "outraged" (I can hear his plummy voice saying it already) by slurs against a fellow gay lawyer. Or does Marr know something about Marsden he would prefer not to say? (Just a guess...)