A man who spent eight months in prison for a rape he did not commit is preparing to sue the state after a judge suggested “political expediency” prevented him from being “acquitted within minutes.”
Daniel Martinez is seeking compensation after spending eight months in pretrial detention before being acquitted of sexually assaulting a woman in a jury trial where the jury did not hear his prior history of nearly identical false accusations against other men.
Martinez could recover more than $400,000 in damages if he sues for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, or even assault and battery.
The state of New South Wales could also have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs if it goes to court and loses.
Man wrongfully imprisoned for rape could receive hundreds of thousands in compensation
Martinez’s case has raised questions about whether those accused of sex crimes are being fully granted the presumption of innocence in the wake of the MeToo movement.
After a judge stated he believed there were “secret policies” leading to the use of “grossly flawed evidence” to justify sexual assault prosecutions, the office of New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions Sally Dowling announced an audit of 400 such cases.
Five NSW District Court judges have criticized Ms Dowling’s office for bringing “desperate” sexual assault cases to court.
NSW Attorney General Michael Daley has also faced questions in state parliament about whether prosecutions are being brought without any reasonable prospect of conviction based on secret internal policies informed by recent changes to the law.
Daley said he was advised that prosecutors follow “publicly available prosecution guidelines.”
He declined to comment on the audit being carried out, saying “the specific details of the review are a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions.”
Reviewing Mr Martinez’s case for costs, Judge Robert Newlinds said that if the jury had heard five almost identical allegations made by the plaintiff against another man, the defendant would have been “acquitted within minutes”.
“I believe the prosecution took the lazy and perhaps politically expedient route of identifying that the complainant alleged she had been sexually assaulted and without properly considering the question of whether there was any evidence to support that allegation,” Judge Newlinds said.
New South Wales Attorney General Michael Daley has also faced questions in state parliament about whether prosecutions are being brought without any reasonable prospect of conviction.
Judge Newlinds said the jury should have been allowed to decide on the basis of all the relevant information.
‘This must stop. “Justice has not and will not be done with repeated cases being prosecuted based on clearly flawed evidence,” he said.
The complainant alleged that she passed out due to intoxication before Martinez sexually assaulted her.
However, the trial heard she “enthusiastically participated” in the sex and consent was obtained every step of the way.
The case has raised concerns about New South Wales legislation that does not allow juries to hear evidence of tendencies that would expose patterns of behavior in previous sexual history.
Those accused of sex crimes are also now denied a pretrial hearing and must prove that there was “affirmative consent” to sexual acts.
Attorney Ben Willcox, who represented Mr. Martinez, said the cumulative changes were changing the way prosecutors treated sex crimes, he reported. The Australian.
“The introduction of affirmative consent provisions challenges the presumption of innocence,” he said.
“This, in my opinion, has had an impact in terms of how the ODPP approaches their assessment of sexual assault allegations and the procedural guidelines they are bound by.”
Following her ruling on Mr Martinez’s wrongful imprisonment, Ms Dowling lodged a complaint against Judge Newlinds with the New South Wales Judicial Commission, but the outcome has not been made public.