Shamed Scottish judges

Meanwhile, the feminist quest to destroy the lives of men continues unabated. Many other Australian states have now joined NSW in legislating affirmative consent – Victoria, Queensland and the ACT (Tasmania has similar laws dating back to 2004).

The ACT is going great guns. A recent report in The Canberra Times claimed there were at least 20 times as many sexual offence charges laid in the last quarter of 2024 compared to five years earlier – and that their new affirmative consent laws were contributing to this success. A few days later came the embarrassing retraction. The Justice and Community Safety Directorate had erred– new statistics showed only 3.5 times more charges in 2023 than 2020. Who knows what's really going on here, but local ACT lawyers report that the current policy is that ALL sexual assault cases are shoved through to trial. No investigation is needed. Let the court decide.

And no one gives a hoot about the impact on accused men. Look what happened in NSW when the DPP Sally Dowling called an audit of sexual assault cases after seven District Court judges had criticised meritless cases being pushed through to court. The result was a whitewash, finding 97% of cases complied with the guidelines, and only 17 cases being discontinued.

Meanwhile, our jails are full of accused men who haven't even had a trial. Two years ago I reported that 42% of the men in prison in NSW are on remand – they haven't faced trial. Most of these are sexual assault or domestic violence cases.

But, at least in Australia, rape shield requirements have not yet reached the absurdities exposed in Scotland. Although evidence or questions about a complainant's sexual history/behaviour may be excluded, we don't have the mandatory pre-approval processes seen in Scotland.

Not yet. Note that the recent Australian Law Reform Commission Inquiry looking at judicial responses to sexual violence – which released its recommendations a year ago - proposed "ground rules" hearings pre-trial which would set us on a similar path to what is happening in Scotland.

And in Canada. The crippling effects of Canadian pre-trial hearings is a regular topic on the excellent YouTube video series, Not on Record – which features criminal lawyer Joseph Neuberger and legal researcher Diana Davison, long known for her work supporting wrongfully accused men. Davison explains that Canadian defence lawyers are not allowed to talk about anything of a sexual nature unless it is approved in a pretrial motion, nor can they discuss consensual sex that proceeded or followed the alleged rape. The fact the complainant gets to see all the defence evidence and questions in advance means her evidence can be tailored and sanitized.

Neuberger recently won a recent case involving a 19-year-old student who was accused of sexual assault and violence against another student. In dismissing all charges, the judge noted that the girl had tailored her evidence after learning how the defence team planned to shoot down her claims. The judge ended up apologising to the accused: "On behalf of the administration of justice for the Province of Ontario, I wish to apologize for the significant inconvenience and expense to which you have been subjected, as a result of these proceedings".

Across the world, wrongfully accused men deserve similar apologies. Of course, if the police and prosecution did their jobs fairly in the first place, such cases would never reach court. But the misandrist culture we are in makes this increasingly unlikely. Our police and prosecutors are clearly cowed by the feminist-dominated media, academia and politicians.

It makes it all the more important to spread the word about this momentous UK Supreme Court case – which has exposed the injustice now so widespread