Martin Blackmore SC has been a Judge at the District Court of New South Wales since 2002. In a long and distinguished career, he has appeared in hundreds of criminal trials and appeals as a barrister at the NSW Bar, and previously served as the NSW Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions. He is the co-author of Criminal Law NSW with former District Court Judge Greg Hosking SC.

2 Responses

  1. Richard
    Richard at | | Reply

    I must admit I find this all rather incredulous. Lets step back from all the legal mumbo jumbo for a minute. You are supposed to convict beyond reasonable doubt. So for example, girl is raped. Goes to a hospital, police are there, DNA evidence is obtained. The perpetrator is caught and his DNA matches. Witness identifies attacker. This is beyond reasonable doubt. Quite happy with this normal approach to evidence. Compare that to the current legal system. For eg. a girl who may have known me say 20 or 30 year ago who lets say always has had an obsession about me decides to teach me a lesson for ignoring her or breaking it off with her or whatever. She accuses me of rape 20 years ago. (maybe we had consensual sex many times. whoops not good for me. I had sex.) In Australia at this point my life is now already destroyed before I get to court. Once I’m in court I will be financially destroyed and based on the ridiculous cases I have read lately I may well be convicted on the basis of the single testimony of one person and no other evidence. How can that be beyond reasonable doubt??! More alarming is how do these cases even get into court! By definition there is reasonable doubt the minute the case is solely word against word. I simply cannot comprehend how asinine our legal system has begun just so our politicians can satisfy the uneducated public’s need for blood. It’s completely insane. I think we have walked so far into the forest we can’t see the trees anymore. You can’t convict people because the crime is abhorrent to you. You need REAL evidence.

    1. Ben
      Ben at | | Reply

      Couldn’t agree with you more Richard. Beyond reasonable doubt and relying on single witness testimony without any other evidence are polar opposites. They can’t coexist. Some how though they have managed to find a way to make it sound quite reasonable so they can sleep at night. If the only evidence is single witness testimony then by definition there IS reasonable doubt and quite a lot of it to boot. Something very wrong with our legal system. When there is injustice in a system then people take the law into their own hands.

Leave a Reply