Editor, The West Australian: Sir, I respond to your report ‘Overcrowding to blame for jail assaults’ TWA 16 Dec 09 p18.
It goes without saying that overcrowded prisons where prisoners are forced to share a cell with other prisoners will always be open to abuse within the jail system, where normally a 1-man cell becomes a 2 or 3 man cell.
I suggest that a reason for the overcrowding in our jails, or a major contributing factor over the past 20 years, is that the laws allowing convictions for serious assault have changed, where the complainant, generally women, doesn’t have to have corroborating evidence to secure a conviction supposedly beyond reasonable doubt.
I have received a steady stream of letters where people who have been convicted claim that there was no corroborating evidence to support the allegation of the complainant. My understanding is that, in more recent years, there are more denials of those convicted who go before the parole board then ever before. Because they are in denial they may have to serve their maximum sentence. I’m positive, if the Attorney General would initiate a study of people who have been convicted of sexual charges, he will find out there is a substantial increase in denial.
You come back to the fundamental principle of common law, that you would prefer to see 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man convicted. Retired Supreme Court Judge Peter Connolly said at that time, when the laws were being changed in his State: “Rape is a serious offence and still has possible maximum sentence of life. What about the situation where the girl gets cranky with a fellow, and says do this or do that or I will cry rape? That is always a possibility.”
Under the current law, the judge simply tells the jury – if the victim’s testimony was not corroborated – “you must gauge who is telling the truth”. So far as I’m concerned, that is the most dangerous situation to put a possibly innocent man in. Where 12 good people supposedly can convict him beyond reasonable doubt with no proof other than her word against his and vice-versa. The law as it stands now is contributing to the overcrowding of the prison population.
Not so long ago, in the Supreme Court I witnessed a Judge who said to the defence counsel, just because there is no supporting evidence doesn’t say that it didn’t happen. If this is the attitude of our Supreme Court bench, what chance has the innocent accused got? No wonder our prison systems are overcrowded.
– Brian G Tennant, Human Rights Campaigner, CLA member, Subiaco, WA