Vanessa Scammell

So what of the magistrate's rulings?

In number 669, she damningly speaks of the laws of 2014 being rightly criticised for rewarding a sex offender for their self-absorption, who in their sexual interactions can only see what he desires and needs and who interprets a woman's reactions as invariably congruent with his own.

She goes on.

Number 671.

It seems counterintuitive to find an accused not criminally liable for such sexual harassment.

And as I said, this is no longer the law.

In these rulings, it is blindingly obvious that the magistrate is suggesting that this lap sitting involved sexual interaction.

So do the so-called eyewitnesses who sat next to C3 when this incident occurred, who gave no evidence of any assault or any backstage activity that was out of the ordinary, not matter?

When there was no evidence of any desire by Craig McLachlan to sexually interact with this accuser, when C3 herself had to admit that there was nothing sexual about the dressing room kiss he was also charged with, does this not count?

These rulings that I have just read have been published often.

Cherry-picked passages to use as some sort of evidence that Craig was in fact guilty.

But I note that the final rulings in relation to this charge have never been printed, discussed or reported on.

Until now.

So let's go to the magistrate's final rulings.

Number 673.

I find that the prosecution have not negated beyond reasonable doubt the possibility that the accused was not aware that C3 was not consenting.

Number 676.

In the strange circumstances of the Rocky Horror Show behaviour, it was possibly behaviour that was generally acceptable in the course of everyday life.

Mr H*** was a witness to this incident and said he did not think too much of it at the time.

Taking the surrounding circumstances into account, I find the Crown has not negated on the high criminal standard the possibility of lawful excuse for this behaviour.