Does anybody care about Bruce Lehrmann's life? Not at all? Would you care if an enraged activist ran him over? Surely no-one would think that was OK.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Nonetheless the fact that his life in so many ways, other than the fact of his being, has been wrecked seems to register as no more than a blip with many.
Are you quietly thinking to yourself that he was guilty and he's got his just deserts? Good luck to you when the Stasi equivalent come knocking on your door.
The question everyone needs to face up to is: Do you believe that you should be judged innocent until you are convicted of an offence?
There's no halfway house here. That's what protects you from enemies or worse, government officials, setting you up. Who could sensibly think a baying mob would be better?
There's been much commentary lately about the toll the pressure of the trial has taken on Ms Higgins.
That a sexual assault trial is particularly difficult for the alleged victim is not news. We have not discovered this because of Ms Higgins. There's much less commentary about the impact on the defendant. Sensible people have been working for decades to improve the system.
The Third Report of the Mitchell Commission, chaired by the late Dame Roma Mitchell, one of our most eminent jurists, had a number of recommendations to protect the defendant. They amount to recognising that fairness demands keeping the accused's name out of the media until as late as possible. The trial should be in the courtroom not in the media. That's a pipe dream for Mr Lehrmann.
Ms Higgins was affronted that her allegations were put to the test in court. That's troubling.
An ambitious political advisor would understand the elementary cornerstones of our democratic freedoms.
Innocent until proven guilty is one of them. As a consequence of her allegations a man's liberty was a stake, a stretch in the slammer with all that goes with it was staring him in the face.
Did she think his legal advisors would just acquiesce?
She opted for the public path in this matter, seemingly egged on by some media personalities and others.
There was an enormous rally in front of Parliament House. That doesn't happen by accident. It takes thought and commitment.
READ MORE:
Being portrayed as a hero of the women's movement may well have provided an initial glow, adrenalin boost and distraction from any negative thoughts.
But the spotlight always comes at a cost. Some in Parliament kept the spotlight on. All of these things allowed various parties to portray themselves as caring defenders of Ms Higgins.
The trouble is in sending that message, "I care" they kept the spotlight on. Maybe not enough care was given in considering what was best for Ms Higgins.
One hopes that someone actually went through with her and explained the cost of being used in this way.
One cost is that having built up the media and public interest, there was a greater focus on the trial than on other trials of sexual abuse allegations.
That meant that every mistake or change in her evidence got media attention. It is not just that a series of corrections brings your credibility into doubt. It's that you see that happening in front of you. It comes out of your mouth. You do it to yourself.
Once you turn the spotlight on yourself it stays there.
The DPP may well say he has taken the welfare of Ms Higgins into account in determining not to retry the matter.
If it is true that experienced investigators doubted there was sufficient evidence for a prosecution in the first place I am surprised that the toll of a trial on Ms Higgins was apparently not given sufficient weight at that time.
Certainly, Mr Lerhmann, Ms Higgins and the public deserve an explanation as to why he did proceed in those circumstances.
Is it fitting for the DPP to, when announcing no further trial to, in the minds of many, infer that but for Ms Higgins' health, prosecution would go ahead?
Innocent until proven guilty should be ringing in his ears.
People are right to worry about Ms Higgins' welfare. Ditto the welfare of Mr Lehrmann. He is according to law an innocent man.
Equally, we should ask ourselves why this case, why Ms Higgins' allegations got so much more media attention than other cases.
You can say she chose the attention and she did.
But there were people used to the swirling power of tidal media exposure who should have advised her of just how bright that spotlight can be.
Sadly they may have been too busy stepping into the "I care" spotlight to demonstrate that modicum of humanity.
The trial process is tough. If you've been under way too much pressure in the lead up, it may well be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
- Amanda Vanstone is a former Howard government minister and a fortnightly columnist.
Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content:
- Bookmark canberratimes.com.au
- Download our app
- Make sure you are signed up for our breaking and regular headlines newsletters
- Follow us on Twitter
- Follow us on Instagram