Much has been said in recent times about the rights of accused persons brought before the courts. Yes, there is the presumption of innocence, the right to representation and the right to a fair trial. These are all pillars of our legal system which have evolved over the centuries.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The trouble is the system hasn't found a fair and equitable way to balance the rights of the accused with the rights of the alleged victim. This is of particular concern when it comes to allegations of domestic violence.
Surely a woman who has called the police in the wake of alleged domestic violence has the right to be protected from the person she has accused.
The death of Molly Ticehurst, allegedly at the hands of her former partner, in central western NSW is a particularly stark example of the dangers women in abusive relationships with violent men live with night and day.
It follows a spate of domestic violence related murders in central Victoria, the attack targeting women in Bondi Junction and regular reporting at least one woman is murdered by a current or former partner every week.
Ms Ticehurst, a much-loved young mum and childcare worker, had recently called police after an incident involving Daniel Billings.
Billings was charged with three counts of sexual intercourse without consent, four counts of stalking and harassment, two counts of damaging or destroying property and one count of animal cruelty. Officers do not lay such charges lightly.
What happened next is impossible to comprehend. When Billings was brought before the Dubbo Local Court the registrar - not a Magistrate - placed him on an interim apprehended violence order and released him on $5000 bail.
If the registrar had chosen not to grant bail on the grounds that, if free, Billings posed a serious danger to Ms Ticehurst, she would almost certainly be alive today. Her child would still have a mother.
It is alleged Billings, displaying a contempt for the AVO all too common with crimes of this nature, went to her home over the weekend and killed her. Police have described the murder as "brutal".
It has also been reported that he had gone to her workplace the previous week and was told to move on - surely a red flag.
Fortunately such a miscarriage of justice is less likely to occur in the ACT.
The ACT Bail Act specifically states bail can only be granted to an alleged domestic violence perpetrator if the person granting it is satisfied that the person would pose no danger to a "protected person" aka the alleged victim.
And if bail is granted by the court the person authorising it must clearly document why they are satisfied the alleged offender poses no danger to any protected person.
There is no presumption of an entitlement to bail. The responsibility to consider the welfare of the alleged victim is a strong disincentive against a "tick and flick" approach.
This was recently demonstrated by a case in which a 23-year-old Canberra man, charged with forcible confinement, burglary, aggravated common assault, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, was refused bail by the ACT Magistrates Court.
"It's [the alleged offending] so far outside of the realm of reasonable behaviour that I'm not sure that I could be satisfied that he would submit to [bail] conditions," Magistrate Alexandra Burt said.
But we're far from perfect. Thousands of ACT women live in fear of former partners years after the matters have been dealt with.
The imbalance between the rights of the accused and the safety of those who have allegedly suffered at their hands needs to be addressed - and quickly.
