Sexual assault at RMC Duntroon

floradora said :

It’s for the Director of Public Prosecutions and not the Department of Defence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

So when they’re found guilty – sexual assault or physical assault – does it then fall to the Department of Defence to do anything? Bring them to the table perhaps?

Or better yet, dishonourably discharge them, not keep them in their jobs and bend over backwards to protect them……

And yes, I speak from experience….

floradora said :

The Accused is entitled to the legal presumption of innocence – a fundamental human right embodied in Article 14(2) of the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which has been codified in the ACT in s22(1) of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT).

It’s for the Director of Public Prosecutions and not the Department of Defence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

You forgot the code that is most applicable to the cadet in question. The Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (Cth) applies to all members of the Defence Force regardless of where a criminal act was carried out.

In this case, the cadet *may* face charges under:
Sections 23 or 24 – Absent from duty / Absent without leave (max punishment: 12 mths confinement)
Section 29 – Failing to comply with a general order (max punishment: 12 mths confinement)
Section 31 – Obstructing a police member (max punishment: 12 mths confinement)
Section 33 – Assault, insulting or provocative words etc. (max punishment: 6 mths confinement)
Section 60 – Prejudicial conduct (max punishment: 3 mths confinement)

From memory of other criminal offences undertaken by ADF personnel, the cadet will front a civilian criminal court for the offences. The ADF can then take action using the DFDA on charges not yet dealt with by the civilian court. If charges are proven, the cadet will either be considered to have been sufficiently dealt with by the civilian court if imprisoned, or will be transfered to the Defence Force Correctional Establishment (DFCE) at Holsworthy in Sydney.

The RMC Commandant, in a reported press conference after the bail hearing, has lost no time in placing his personal views on the public record as to how he views matters of this nature, and whathe thinks will happen to the Accused if the charges are proved.

One possible reason for this rather curious outburst might be that he doesn’t wish to suffer the same fate as his AFDA colleague.

Those who advise the good Brigadier should urge him to dwell a pause of several marching paces before making any further public comment in matters that are before the Court.

The Accused is entitled to the legal presumption of innocence – a fundamental human right embodied in Article 14(2) of the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which has been codified in the ACT in s22(1) of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT).

It’s for the Director of Public Prosecutions and not the Department of Defence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.