Jury-less Trial aquits man of Rape.

**Percy** · 29th-September-2010

District Court finds man not guilty of raping former de facto wife at Loganholme

Mark Oberhardt
From: The Courier-Mail
September 29, 2010 12:19PM

A JUDGE has found a man not guilty of raping his former de facto wife because he could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt whose version of events was correct.

In a rare judge-only trial at the District Court in Beenleigh, the man pleaded not guilty to two counts of rape, sexual assault and assault occasioning bodily harm at Loganholme in March 2005.

The names in the case were suppressed for legal reasons.

The trial was told the woman alleged the man had pushed her over and stomped on her, on March 22, 2005.

It was further alleged that on March 28, 2005, he had sexually assaulted her by indecent touching and further had raped her twice.

The man told the court he had not assaulted his wife and she had fallen over when he tried to squeeze past her.

He denied sexually assaulting her and while agreeing they had sexual intercourse said it was with consent.

As is the case with judge-only trials, Judge Greg Koppenol gave his reasons for acquitting the man in a written judgment which became available today.

He noted the pair had been in a de facto relationship for eight years until 2004 but in 2005 still saw each other for occasional sex.

Judge Koppenol noted there had been tension between the couple over the division of "substantial real estate assets" which had led to Supreme Court action.

He said each had made allegations of violence against the other and each had domestic violence orders against the other.

Judge Koppenol said he found the complainant's evidence confusing at times while the defendant had been a convincing witness.

He said he was left with the distinct impression that to varying degrees the parties action and evidence was affected by feelings of jealousy, frustration and anger.

Judge Koppenol said as well there was deep anxiety about the disposition of disputed property with a value of more than $1 million.

He said the woman's version might be correct just as the man's might be correct.

Judge Koppenol said they both couldn't be correct and he was therefore left with a reasonable doubt about the charges.

He entered verdicts of not guilty on all charges.

**Bmiricle** · 29th-September-2010

ha ha f'ing ha.

**Dylan MacVillain** · 29th-September-2010

Imagine two men, Frank and Harry, are business partners for eight years. Eventually, the business relationship turns sour, they decide to part ways, and they argue over splitting the business assets as there is a lot of money at stake. However, over the next year, they get together for an occasional beer. On one of these occasions they argue and fight. There are no witnesses as they fight in a back alley. There are no cameras. Neither goes to the hospital. They part ways again. Then, 5 years later, Harry goes to the police to file assault and battery charges against Frank for the fight. Does anyone honestly think the police would arrest Frank? If they did, does anyone honeslty think a judge would spend time with the case?

Now give one of the parties boobs and a vagina, call her Harriet, and make the charge rape, and you have a case!!! It's magic!!

**Marx** · 29th-September-2010

Nonetheless, this judge actually managed to follow the principles of law - by finding someone "not guilty" when there was a reasonable doubt. This is not applied often enough as most judges are too scared of offending feminist groups and receiving pressure from them.

**omegaflux** · 29th-September-2010

I remember reading a study, which I can't find now since I'm at school, that showed there is a far greater chance of having a case dismissed, or if found guilty receiving a lesser sentence, if you waive your right to a jury trial. Apparently, your best shot is to just plead a case to the judge, and this case shows why. In a jury trial, it would have only been about who can tell the best story and who is the more likable, which we know is always the woman since all of society knows woman=good and man=bad. When you plead before a judge, it's all, or at least it should be like in this case, about fact.

**Kargan3033** · 30th-September-2010

Quote from Marx

Nonetheless, this judge actually managed to follow the principles of law - by finding someone "not guilty" when there was a reasonable doubt. This is not applied often enough as most judges are too scared of offending feminist groups and receiving pressure from them.

All to true Bro, we despertly need more judges like this man who really understand what the law is about and will not pander to the femanazis.