James Allen, the Right wing law professor that who I have long thought a twit, writes about Christian Porter:
And if you agree with me about this [the criminal standard of proof being beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused having the right to cross examine their accuser] – to repeat myself, many do not – then you will see immediately (as I said) that on the facts of these allegations no legal system with any commitment to fair procedures would ever consider Christian Porter as anything other than wholly innocent. End of story. That’s how it should be. Let me be unequivocally clear about that.
What he does not want to mention, although being a lawyer he would be completely aware of it, is the civil law standard of proof of "balance of probabilities". Hence, you have situations where a person is acquitted of a crime, but can still be found civilly liable to pay compensation. Hello, OJ Simpson.
Questions of appropriateness of positions held in a government should not be decided on simple "did he commit a crime or not according to criminal burden of proof" - especially in a case where no complete police investigation is possible due to the death of the complainant.
Quite disingenuous, just as Porter's "but no one told me any of the details" claims today.
1 comment:
you are correct. Fancy a law professor not knowing that.
of course he would!
Post a Comment