How to get a fair trial in Australia

The case of Rolf Jansen, a former US army sergeant, was set to become a test case for a new wave of legal challenges to the rule of law in Australia.

But last week Justice Peter MacCallum announced a ruling that would mean he would be able to rule the case without a jury in a separate case, rather than just a majority.

It means a lower court judge could rule the defence did not prove that the alleged offences committed by Jansen did not rise to the level of criminal responsibility, but instead that he was merely a scapegoat.

What is a scapegoate?

A scapegoat is a person or group that is blamed for an act, such as a crime, or for an injustice.

It can be an organisation or group of people, or an individual.

It has a bad reputation, but in most cases is a victim of discrimination and injustice.

In Jansen’s case, the scapegoat was his former boss, Sergeant Major Robert Jansen.

Jansen was a well-respected officer who was often promoted to senior rank.

Jahan was accused of assaulting a former girlfriend in 2003, a charge that Jansen denied.

The case was set for trial in 2010.

J Hansen was eventually charged with sexual assault of a child.

The trial was postponed in March 2011 and the trial court found Jansen guilty on the lesser charge of sexual assault, but his conviction was quashed.

The ruling has been hailed as a major victory for the defence.

The Australian Federal Police is due to issue a statement later on Thursday.

But the ruling could have implications for the wider legal battle in Australia over the rule and conduct of the courts.

Justice MacCallus, who has made a point of emphasising the “good faith” of his decision, said he had found J Hansen’s conduct did not meet the standard of “good intention”.

“I find that the conduct of Sergeant Major Jansen in relation to his relationship with Ms. Janssen was not of the character or conduct expected of a member of the Australian Federal Armed Forces in relation, to her Honour’s judgment, to the conduct described,” Justice Maccallus said.

The judge said he did not believe the conduct was justified in relation the allegations.

“There is no evidence that he sought the victim’s consent to the relationship,” Justice MacDonald said.

“I do not find the accused engaged in sexual intercourse or attempted to have sexual intercourse with Ms Jansson.”

He did not find Jansen had “engaged in conduct of an indecent nature”.

Justice Macallum also found that the complainant was a young woman and had a disability, making her a scapegoated victim.

The decision has been welcomed by advocates who have fought to overturn laws which they say are discriminatory and unequal in the way the courts handle cases of sexual violence.

“It’s a big win for the community because it means that the defence can’t just go through trial and have to prove the allegations and they don’t have to rely on the defence, which means that there is now an opportunity for them to get justice and get out of a very dangerous situation,” former NSW police officer, Steve Coughlan, said.

But there was some opposition from lawyers for the accused.

“The case is going to be very difficult for them because they don the court and they have to sit in the jury box and they’re not going to get to hear what the jury actually has to say,” lawyer Peter Wilson said.

Justice MacDonald has said he does not want the decision to affect the outcome of the case, but he said it was an important step towards justice.

He said Jansen would now have to wait for his case to be heard by the NSW Supreme Court.

“If I’m not satisfied that there are good grounds to go forward, then I won’t proceed,” Justice John Macdonald said.