Vanessa Scammell

When the ABC did their breakdown of new versus old laws post-acquittal, they published the following.

They also included commentary from a lawyer, Mr Feeder.

But proving the mental element, i.e.

the fault element, that one element of the law that changed, is still only part of the picture.

To convict someone under new laws, the court also has to establish that...

All of these elements must be satisfied for a conviction.

The bottom line is that in the Craig McLachlan case, the evidence, or lack thereof, just didn't reach the criminal threshold for any conviction to have been made against Craig.

Regardless of the fault element, indecency simply was not proven, i.e.

there was no evidence that Craig derided any sexual gratification from any of the allegations he fought in court, nor was there any sexual connotation in any of the actions.

None of the allegations could be proven they occurred, and even prosecution eyewitnesses couldn't back up the claims once on the stand.

And further, in regard to the lap sit, C3 had sat on Craig's lap around the same time, straddling his thigh, making lewd comments about leaving snail trails.

Even with the one element of the new law having changed, it would be reasonable to ask why Craig would not believe that C3 was not consenting to a lap sit.

For, as heard in court by so many witnesses, lap sitting was commonplace in the Rocky Horror Show of 2014.

So what does one do when these sorts of comments, comments that have been used in a blanket fashion, comments that are still used to this very day to perpetuate the notion that Craig may have possibly be found guilty if the new laws existed?

Post-acquittal, as the months went by, I discovered I wasn't alone in being deeply concerned with Magistrate Wallington's rulings and commentary.

There were many others who had attended the court or who had listened online during the WebEx sessions who expressed a desire to make a complaint about her conduct, her bias and her perplexing commentary.

And so, in 2021, I, along with at least a dozen others, made complaints to the Melbourne Magistrates Court Judicial Office regarding the conduct of Magistrate Wallington.

Amongst the myriad of concerns I submitted, a big emphasis lay on what we have been discussing in this episode, namely the rulings regarding new versus old laws.

In dealing with these rulings and her commentary, I submitted to the Commission that In order to prove someone guilty, the prosecution must prove the following five elements beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether or not the laws of consent have changed, these five elements of law have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.