Can someone explain please
 

My GF told me today that she knows a guy who is currently being charged for apparently sexually harassing a 17yo girl. The problem is that there is apparently video evidence and witnesses which pretty much prove that he did nothing wrong.

However none of these evidence are allowed to be shown in court as it may cause the judge to go bias against the female who is accusing this guy. The guy although has very good evidence which he cannot use has no other way of proving himself innocent and it's word of mouth from the girl which they are taking over his.

The guy is looking at 5+ years and the girl is looking at a nice pay check. How in the world does that work out? My pop was thrown in gaol (and has an AVO of 2 years he cannot have dropped) for something similar before being found innocent by the Supreme Court. I don't understand how females can get away with such stuff.

Can someone explain to me why this guy is not allowed to show his evidence?

EDIT: Actually IIRC the evidence was thrown out due to the reason above (about judge being bias). Also note the the judge was female.

Do you have any decent sources for this? Remember, your GF used to post here so we know what she comes out with.

This just in: Stop dicking around with underage girls.

See wut I did thar ?

Apparently the guy is the husband of a women that works at the same place my gf works (nursing home). The guy in question apparently works at a butcher shop where the supposedly sexual harassment happened.

My GF was told the story by the guys wife. There apparently is video footage of inside the shop which does indeed show that the 17yo did enter the shop and did ask the butcher for some help. later on in the footage they are heard laughing and joking AFTER the incident apparently happened.

There was apparently people (witnesses) at the butcher shop as well.

lol, yea fair enough.http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ies/laugh1.gif

EDIT: What i don't understand is why he wasn't allowed to use the witnesses or video footage as evidence that he did not commit a crime. Apparently this 17yo is up for a $40k pay check if this guy is found guilty.

Perhaps he should be looking at a civil defamation suit against her, the video and witnesses may be legal then.
I assume his legal council has petitioned the court to show it, if applicable?

Anyway, it could have been verbal flirting which she later thought about and considered inappropriate - seems a bit extreme on her part if true.

BTW, in Aussie, age of consent is 16 except South Australia and, surprisingly, Tasmania which are 17.

It's still ongoing as far as I'm aware. I just didn't think it was fair that his evidence was not allowed but her word over his was accepted.

That sounds fishy as hell to me and I somehow wouldn't take the word of the wife for granted... In the end we simply don't know what the truth is.

Isn't there some law about you have to have a notice up saying that you're on CCTV or it's not admissible in court?

As you can tell, I'm no lawyer.

I doubt this happened. If the evidence was inadmissible in court it must be for other reasons other than the judge being biased. If a judge doesnt allow evidence on the basis that he/she might be biased well bam there is your instant appeal right there. I will concede that when it comes to sexual harassment and rape cases that the court system is heavily biased against the male. The reasoning for this is that back before 1960's the interpretation of rape laws and sexual harassment statutes were disgustingly one sided for the male. There was a particular case from the 1920s that I read in class that concerned the raping of a 14 year old girl by a 20 year old male. The man was obviously so much stronger and bigger than the girl that she was unable to resist enough to leave physical marks on the male defendant. The judge ruled that rape couldn't be successfully charged because the defendant lacked any physical wounds which the court took to mean that the defendant didn't put up enough resistance to indicate that she did not consent to sex. Messed up s**t.

Not in the US or at least in Michigan. The images cant be used in public or sold for profit without the consent of those on the video but they can be used in court without permission. When you enter a store or someones home they have every right to record your actions in the public domains of their building ie the living room, kitchen, and hallways. They cant however record you in the bathroom or in a bed room that you may be staying in. There is no legal obligation to let them know.

In UK, CCTV in public areas is subject to the Data Protection Act, I believe its admissible in court, the signs you see are just for courtesy and deterrence.

Different rules apply for those installed in domestic property though.

FAKE, we know you are talking about yourself.

Get your self a new attorney who will present your case in front of bias-free judge.


If this guy goes to jail, then he deserves to for not exercising his right and options to full extent of the law.

LOLhttp://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...es/tongue1.gif. 17yo's are to immature for me. besides I already got a GFhttp://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ies/laugh1.gif.

My pop went to gaol for 2 weeks and didn't even get to have his say. Because he could not come up with evidence to support his case (pretty hard when your in a fish tank and nobody knows until your about to show your face in court) the judge said "Due to the seriousness of the charges being applied, I will not grant bail".

I mean in my pop's case, he wasn't even allowed to have time to show evidence. But this guy actually does have evidence.

ANYWAYS: I managed to get some more information. Apparently the video footage was not allowed because it was not relevant to the case. As it does not show what happened. Apparently they are seen going into the cool room and coming out laughing and joking. The apparent incident happened in the cool room.

Even I'd admit that sounds kinda suspicious. But I know too many females that lie about stuff like this because there is always a big pay check involved if they win[no]

So I do not know who to side with. The guy apparently has no previous criminal history, however the girl in question has been known to be a bit of a...well...you know, and make it look like the guy she's been with look like a bit of a criminal.

GF just showed me a pic of the guy on Facebook. He doesn't exactly look innocent. So I don't know. I won't judge neither of them.http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...es/unsure1.gif

Sounds highly unlikely the court would throw out such evidence imo, i think i'd be considering the possibility that the wife lied to the GF in a vain hope to make her husband appear innocent to others, it may be her way of coping with the embarrassment of it all.

_FAKE_ I'm not usually a spelling nazi but you spelt jail, "gaol" and cheque "check". Now I know they are two correct variants. Though Jail has been now accepted as the more modern correct English and cheque is proper Aussie/British English not that Yankee version. I just found it amusing you used something so old and a Yank spelling. It's like two opposites. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...s/biggrin1.gif

Scoobs spells it "gaol" too.

LOL I do too. Just learnt to spell it like that I guess.

I assume that everyone here that spells it jail is just uneducated.http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...es/tongue1.gif

What kind of "sexual harassment" ends with someone getting 5 years in jail? http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...es/unsure1.gif

LOL, sorry, I do mean cheque http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...es/tongue1.gif

as for 'gaol' or 'jail', I'm not entirely sure which to use. I've always used 'jail' in the past but kinda got told off on whirlpool as 'gaol' is apparently still the correct way to spell it in Australia.

Meh.

With the heritage and history of Australia, I expect they're the experts on jails/gaols, however they spell them http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ies/devil1.gif