Review laws

THE trial and retrial of Luke Lazarus, who was accused of raping an 18-year-old woman, is a high-profile example of the legal system failing to meet community standards.

The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal found legal errors were made by the judge directing the jury at his first trial, which resulted in a conviction and five-year prison sentence, and the judge who presided over his retrial, which resulted in an acquittal.

Despite those errors, the court ruled last year that Mr Lazarus should not stand trial for a third time – as the NSW director of public prosecutions had urged – because it would be “oppressive” to put (him) ... to the expense and worry of a third trial” when he had already served almost 11 months.

The legal errors undermine public confidence in the legal system. The complainant, Saxon Mullins, waived her right to anonymity to speak about her experience and has prompted a debate about the law.

The question now is whether the NSW Crimes Act, and in particular the provisions governing sexual consent, should be amended following the Lazarus trials or if the circumstances in that case were isolated. The Berejiklian government announced it had referred the laws to the NSW Law Reform Commission for review.

The issue was whether Mr Lazarus knew Ms Mullins was not consenting, which is a crucial element of the offence of sexual intercourse without consent. This reasonableness requirement – at the heart of the Lazarus case – is designed to catch cases in which an accused has an honest but wholly unreasonable belief in consent.

The state government is to be commended for its willingness to review the laws.