We have been following a jury trial for the past few days involving an 80-year-old man charged with sex offences which the prosecution alleged occurred 40 years ago involving his niece, who was a child at the time.
The man was found not guilty.
This type of trial troubles me for several reasons.
Firstly, there was no forensic evidence and no corroborating evidence from witnesses who actually saw anything incriminating.
Basically it was the woman’s word against the man’s.
I’m not saying these cases shouldn’t go to trial. In fact, I’m not really sure what to think.
How do the police and the prosecution determine if there is sufficient evidence? Shouldn’t there need to be some corroboration before a case like this gets heard?
Allegations can seriously damage a person’s reputation.
I wonder if there isn’t another way. Perhaps counselling or mediation. Or maybe a mandatory psychiatric assessment of both the accuser and the accused before the Crown considers proceeding with charges.
These articles might be of interest:
