A man has just spent 18 months in jail on a rape charge because police did not pass to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) crucial evidence regarding the alleged victim’s history of mental illness and string of unsubstantiated sexual assault claims.
Peter Millhouse, also known as “The Bondi Caveman” was arrested and charged with rape by Waverley police after a complaint from a 21 year old woman who had apparently spent most of the day talking to him in his cave home, overlooking the sea on the headland at South Bondi. He was refused bail.
There are serious problems with the gradual erosion of the presumption in favour of bail in NSW, so much so that the current government has admitted this and ordered a comprehensive review of the Bail Act.
Nevertheless, in this particular case, based on the evidence available at the time, it was probably reasonable to remand the accused in custody, given the serious nature of the charge, potential danger to the community if he remained free and possibility of him failing to appear.
The problem is that the accused spent 18 months on remand while police sat on evidence that would lead any reasonable, competent person to seriously doubt the possibility of securing a conviction. In fact, when at the defence’s request, the police eventually passed the information to the DPP, they immediately no-billed the case and Peter Millhouse was freed on bail.
What does that tell you about the quality of the evidence?
Initially, the police did everything right. A very serious complaint had been made by a young woman who appeared to be in genuine distress. The alleged perpetrator was quickly arrested, charged and held in custody. On the basis of the evidence presented at the time, no reasonable person could accuse the police of wrongdoing so far.
Now it was entirely possible that the investigating officers may have neglected to look into the complainant’s background and none of the history of mental illness would have come to light. Had this been the case, they could have been accused of laziness and incompetence, but not corruption. It would have been a case of a homeless man, lost in the system, unable to adequately defend himself.
But in fact, the opposite happened. Subsequent to the arrest, the police conducted a competent and timely investigation of the complainant, uncovering a "history of mental illness and unsubstantiated sexual assault reports." So, the police had done everything right: a quick arrest and a thorough follow-up investigation which revealed extra, pertinent evidence.
Which is what makes what happened next criminally corrupt and not simply negligent: the police sat on this evidence for over a year and did not even pass it to the DPP. It is clear from the DPP’s reaction when they eventually did receive the evidence that had it been passed on as soon as the police gathered it, the rape charge would have been no-billed then and Peter Millhouse released from remand, since the two other charges of resist arrest and assault police do not have a presumption against bail.
None of the news articles I can find on the case explicitly say so, but there does not appear to be any forensic evidence of forced sexual intercourse: no bruising or other evidence of violence on the alleged victim, none of the accused’s semen.
Thus, any reasonable reading of the facts of this case leads to the conclusion that Peter Millhouse wrongly spent approximately 15 months in jail as a direct result of police deliberately not passing crucial evidence to the DPP. Even had he been found guilty of the resist arrest and assault police charges, it is likely his sentence would have been the time already served in custody, since there does not appear to be any evidence of serious injury to the arresting officers.
The police must have had a reasonable belief the evidence concerning the complainant’s history would cause the DPP to drop the rape charge, which is why I’m assuming they didn’t pass it on. This is corrupt behaviour. Pure venality. There is no way the police could simply have “forgotten” to pass on such evidence.
As a direct result, Peter Millhouse has wrongly spent at least 12 – 15 months in prison. The police involved should be charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
Did the police refuse to pass on the evidence to the DPP because they believed Millhouse would receive (in their view) an insufficient sentence on the resist arrest and assault police charges, or perhaps even escape conviction? They need to be asked this in court. It is not the prerogative of the police to usurp the powers of a court by withholding evidence to achieve, in their eyes, “the right result”.
One might well ask why the names of the police officers involved have not been published. If there is some consideration being given to charging them, then it is reasonable they retain anonymity until such charges are laid.
But do you really think this will happen? Will the police really get the punishment they deserve for stealing a year of a man’s life? Not that his life was all that great anyway, but that’s for a civil court to judge when assessing compensation.
Maybe Peter Millhouse‘s civil claim will succeed, but I believe that’s against the institution of the NSW Police. I’d like to see him sue the officers, personally.
If the officers involved are not charged, which I believe is highly likely, journalists should be publicly asking them to explain their actions. The community needs to identify these corrupt police and demand they account for their actions.
This case is a good example of what happens when a culture of backing yourself and your colleagues goes too far and becomes a culture of denial and unaccountability; refusing to admit mistakes and a refusal to weed out and punish malicious behaviour.
The police have the power to ruin lives with false charges. Consequently, when individual officers lay false or clearly excessive charges, suppress or manufacture evidence, or collude when giving testimony, their criminality needs to be vigorously pursued.
Waverley Council should not escape censure in this saga. They should have forcibly moved Millhouse on years ago. He wasn’t just a homeless man living quietly in a cave and not bothering anyone. Due to his hoarding of rubbish and its attraction of vermin, he was a public nuisance. When council workers cleared his cave after his arrest, they removed 5 tonnes of rubbish. Five tonnes? Surely sufficient reason to have moved him on long ago. Look at the picture near the top of the article.
Neither should the hand wringing do-gooders who harangued a cowardly council into inertia escape blame either. It’s not his civil right to find a nice cave on public land and fill it with five tonnes of rubbish. If it’s his right, it’s all our right. Then what would your environment look like, you twats?
No comments:
Post a Comment