THE LAW IS AN ASS
Accused rapist gets retrial because of jury selection flaws
AN accused rapist has had his convictions quashed because potential jurors weren’t eyeballed by him during the jury selection process.
Anthony Cook was convicted of six counts of rape and jailed for eight years and five months following a nine-day County Court trial in Geelong last year.
But Mr Cook had the last laugh yesterday when his convictions were quashed by the Court of Appeal, which ordered a retrial, after arguing flaws in the jury selection process.
The decision means Mr Cook’s alleged victim, a single mother, could be forced to testify at his new trial.
Mr Cook had pleaded not guilty to 11 rape charges.
FULL REPORT: Page 2
AN accused laughing rapist has had his convictions quashed because potential jurors weren’t eyeballed by him during the jury selection process.
Anthony Cook was convicted of six counts of rape and jailed for eight years and five months following a nine-day County Court trial in Geelong last year.
But Mr Cook had the last laugh yesterday when his convictions were quashed by the Court of Appeal, which ordered a retrial, after arguing flaws in the jury selection process.
Victorian law provides that accused facing trial by jury have the right to challenge up to six potential jurors without giving any reason.
It is known as the right to “peremptory challenge”.
The long-standing practice of empaneling a jury is that after a prospective juror’s name or number and occupation is called, they walk past the accused in the dock before entering the jury box.
The Court of Appeal ruled yesterday that a direction by Mr Cook’s trial judge that didn’t require prospective jurors to walk past him, had denied him his right to properly challenge jurors.
Mr Cook had argued that the way in which the empanelment had proceeded meant neither he or his lawyer had the opportunity to properly observe, and challenge, prospective jurors before they took their seat in the jury box.
The Court of Appeal, in a summary judgment handed down yesterday, ruled the accused must have a “reasonable opportunity to visually inspect each prospective member of the jury”.
The decision means Mr Cook’s alleged victim, a single mother, could be forced to testify at his new trial.
Mr Cook had pleaded not guilty to 11 rape charges.
He was found guilty of six, acquitted of four, and the jury was unable to reach a verdict on one charge.
Cook had met his victim on Facebook, and later subjected her to what sentencing judge Gerard Mulally described as “sexual violence that no one should have to suffer through”.
After allegedly raping the woman, Mr Cook sat and laughed at her.
The alleged victim spoke to the Geelong Advertiser last year after Mr Cook was con- victed, saying she hoped coming forward and reporting Mr Cook would inspire woman in abusive relationships and battling through the legal system to stay strong.
“I had to tell the truth and to save other women,” she said at the time.
“Come forward and stay positive.
“It is a difficult process, but the law is finally starting to listen. People are out there to help.”