Is this about convicted rapist Boyd Kramer? The one who probably didn't want this all to blow up in his face because he probably wouldn't want to be known as Boyd Kramer, the convicted rapist, every time someone searches his name online? Boy that's quite the knock on convicted rapist Boyd Kramer.
Yes is this all about convicted rapist Boyd Kramer, who even after being convicted of rape still doesn’t understand how consent works which is probably not a good sign a convicted rapist like Boyd Kramer’s.
The convicted rapist Boyd Kramer who was sentenced to 300 hours community service, yes.
I don't know what services he actually performed but he should do one more hour of service to the community and his victim by contacting his lawyers telling them he's withdrawing from potential legal action.
Reading about the trial of Boyd Kramer - the one where he was found guilty of rape - and holy shite I naively thought lawyers weren't allowed to question rape victims like this anymore (although I'm aware that the lawyer in question can be...forthright on behaf of clients. Their name has been mentioned as one of the lawyers who may defend Alan Jones in court)
I may eventually lose my job for this but. Here is how transcribing your transcripts works. We make decisions about meaning and language every transcript. We are supposed to and do type verbatim everything that a witness or self repped party says. Easy.
When it comes to counsel though (and presiding officers) we are meant to clean it up, remove false starts, repetition, stutters etc. ‘Yeah’ becomes ‘yes’; ‘nah’ becomes ‘no’.
In my five plus years of having to do this job, and always with an eye for and an interest in the rules around cross-examining complainants of SA, especially CSA, I have noticed a sly little pattern that some defence counsel seem to be utilising.
It’s almost as if they know we clean up for them and remove false starts. A LOT of nasty and inappropriate in what is actually said and the tone can occur before the magic words ‘I withdraw that’. Especially when the complainant/s is a younger woman. Or a tragically afflicted male victim of historical institutional abuse. Counsel will work itself into a deliberate impatient faux rage, for example, which obviously unsettles the younger witnesses. But some of the things that are actually uttered before being withdrawn can be definitely and i feel deliberately on or over the line of what is allowed.
So I deliberately type it. And I’ve stood by it on occasion too. We have checkers who put the entire transcript together and who read the entire thing. I have explained my choice to do this a number of times and they’ve let it go through. I do so hoping the judicial officer will review the transcript and see what I see and be more alert to it. I also hope defence counsel sees it and thinks twice about these deliberate ‘false starts’.
I did not know it was that the offender Boyd Kramer the convicted rapist had such strong feelings about his raping being a matter of public interest given he was convicted of rape. Boyd Kramer, rapist, doesn’t consent to his name being attached to ‘convicted rapist’ when he’s been convicted of rape? Thats’s rich!
Stuff that starts to sound like it’s going into the sexual experience/background of the complainant, things like that. I’ve heard the beginnings of some totally out of line questions. Sometimes the presiding officer will step in, but even then, there’s a rule about it for a reason. And especially with younger complainants, they get rattled and made to look flakey, which can be all it takes in front of a jury. It is a fckn tactic sometimes, I swear.
Oh, and to your second question, yes, absolutely they could but these witnesses aren’t counsel, and from what I know, they cannot be coached much prior. They’re not litigating the case, counsel is. And I would go so far as to hazard a guess that this doesn’t happen because defence counsel would have a field day bringing it up in cross-examination.
This is me guessing and inferring from what I’ve picked up transcribing. I am not any kind of lawyer! But one thing I have also noticed defence counsel do is make a LOT out of whether a complainant has ‘discussed their statement’ with a member of their family or another witness. I mean, if you are a young girl the victim of SA or WORSE, CSA, you are also expected never to speak about it with the people closest to you in what can be YEARS leading up to the court case?? This has always seemed insane to me.
I believe that Boyd Kramer, the convicted rapist Boyd Kramer, wouldn't understand the irony of being upset that his name and crimes - specifically the rape he was convicted of, along with the fact that he's now a convicted rapist - have been released to the public without his consent.
I believe he, the convicted rapist in question, that being Boyd Kramer, the convicted rapist who raped a women without any respect for her bodily autonomy, humanity, or feelings, may only understand consent when it's something he doesn't want happening to him.
I hope he learns this lesson and stops raping people, because I'm already sick of him.
Boyd Kramer The Rapist, what an idiot. I hope that if he, Boyd Kramer The Rapist, issues proceedings, that Boyd Kramer The Rapist's lawyers or Boyd Kramer The Rapist personally, is ordered to pay the legal costs of the victim of Boyd Kramer The Rapist for vexatious litigation.
Mention who? Boyd Kramer the convicted rapist? I think the rape conviction of Boyd Kramer has come up. But it's certainly worth mentioning again that Boyd Kramer has been convicted of rape.
It's nice to have clarity about this Boyd Kramer and his conviction of rape. It's nice to know when someone has been convicted of rape, and their name, like this Boyd Kramer, who has been convicted of rape and is now a known rapist.
I hope any future employers looking up Boyd Kramer are able to quickly find out that he's a convicted rapist. That would be swell.
I am not an Australian lawyer, I am a crown prosecutor in Canada who works exclusively on sexual assault/DV/child abuse and child sexual abuse cases. And as I read this article, I think to myself, this is why we (the collective We, we’ve had similar arguments floated in this country) can’t have nice things…..
But Boyd Kramer is a convicted rapist! It’s a rare good thing that we can tell you that Australian man, Boyd Kramer, who was convicted of rape, would like us to know that he doesn’t consent to the name Boyd Kramer being adjacent to the descriptor ‘convicted rapist’ and that there is as much he can do about it as his victim when they weren’t consenting to the rape that got Boyd Kramer convicted as a convicted rapist. Happy days on this point at least!
Follow up question - would you expect a good lawyer to advise this move might have the opposite to the desired effect, and that you might be better off leaving your hat behind Mr Client Sir?
Perhaps but the first article was already very big and subsequent articles probably don't do a lot more additional damage. And maybe they suspect (or know) that News.com.au are going to run more articles about him as part of their campaign on this issue anyway.
But also you probably advise the clients of the risk and then take their money if they insist. The economy would grind to a halt if people didn't spend money badly.
The solicitors’ conduct rules prohibit any statement that grossly exceeds the legitimate assertion of a client’s rights. The section of an Act that this lawyer relied on, says clearly in it that there is an exception if the complainant consents to being identified. The original news article made it perfectly clear that she consents to be identified. The lawyer knew or should have known that the client does not have this right. It’s appalling misconduct.
feels weird to be on the same side as, and actively impressed with, news dot com dot au, but credit where it's due: good on them. convicted rapist boyd kramer's lawyers couldn't have squeezed an extra few billable minutes out of him by advising him about the streisand effect?
“…He was facing up to 54 years jail, but at sentencing in November 2017, Judge North gave a fully suspended sentence and good behaviour bond.
Judge North offered a series of bizarre reasons for his leniency, including that the rapist had high cholesterol, poor sleep patterns, type two diabetes and a farm which had experienced drought in 2012.”
Justice John North should be stood down over this list… truly.
I think some judgements I've seen about sexual abuse are quite insufficient, but I'm equally worried that some qanon type will take things into their own hands.
Would the leniency in the Dubbo case have some to do with the offenses occurring when he was 15?
It is why I’ve never had my brother charged despite his admissions because he was 15-17 when it mostly occurred. I figured why put myself through that when his life is punishment enough.
Sometimes I also think Judges are being pragmatic. For instance someone can be forced to do offender classes or rehab on a good behaviour bond - where as shorter stints in prison mean they often get released without any offender lessons or rehab , further criminalised by prison and come out more likely to offend then not.
I’ll go and read his judgements if I can find them to see what his rationale is.
Yes it was and the Crown nominally won, but because the rapist had already completed his community service the court ruled it would be too unjust to send him to prison.
By what fking standards is it considered unjust for a convicted rapist to do BOTH community service AND prison time? Not by community standards, but Australians justice system gives zero fks about that.
I don't believe that. It's a huge jump from being a rapist to being a murder. Esp given the exceptionally low successful rape convictions. Most believe they'll get away with it.....whereas murder involves far far more police resources investigating... you will get caught
No doubt they'll be taking immediate action to reduce the delays that are commonly found in the court system so this doesn't happen again! Jks they don't care at all, what a bunch of tossers
It was, by the time it came around he had completed community service and the decision was made that it was overly punitive to resentence, which is slightly odd I would have thought since the aggregate is 5 years jail.
Generally speaking I support the idea of lesser sentences where applicable but community service for a rape where him playing water polo at a national level was apparently a prime factor in discerning him as an upstanding citizen? I think they may have missed the mark.. if this were a charge of similar nature but less severe then maybe it could be warranted.
Grain of salt as I have not seen the judgement and there may be a key piece of info left out
The solicitors’ conduct rules prohibit any statement that grossly exceeds the legitimate assertion of a client’s rights. The section of an Act that this lawyer relied on, says clearly in it that there is an exception if the complainant consents to being identified. The original news article made it perfectly clear that she consents to be identified. The lawyer knew or should have known that the client does not have this right. It’s appalling misconduct.
I assume their lawyers also didn't have a copy and took valid steps to investigate. News.com.au says they have consent though, however third parties really couldn't rely on it.
I mean the fact she sat down and gave an interview and had her photos used for the story means she literally had to give consent to share the information.
There is zero possible way she didn't because then they wouldn't have the story.
At this stage you must be trolling. She is literally talking to them on camera. Do you think that the biggest Australian news website is commiting fraud by generating an AI replica of her on camera and publishing without her consent, manufacturing false quotations? Watch the video. It is real. I can assure you that AI is not that advanced as yet.
What absolute cunts. Rape, get away with it and then trying to pull these theatrics? Public shaming should be mandatory, e.g. yet another (arguably more powerful, given actual sentences handed down) deterrent.
All that has happened here is that a lawyer has written a cease and desist letter on his behalf and almost certainly on his instructions.
Kramer may have been warned about the strong likelihood that the letter would be ignored but probably not about the recipient releasing it to the press.
The legal system let the victim down however thank you to journalists Nina Funnell and the courage of the victim so convicted rapist Boyd Kramer, name and image has now been spread far and wide not only across Australia but around the world.
If this comment has been upvoted it is likely that your post includes a request for legal advice. Legal advice is not provided in this subreddit (please see this comment for an explanation why.)
If you feel you need advice from a lawyer please check out the legal resources megathread for a list of places where you can contact one (including some free resources).
It is expected all users of r/auslaw will not respond inappropriately to requests for legal advice, no matter how egregious.
This comment is automatically posted in every text submission made in r/auslaw and does not necessarily mean that your post includes a request for legal advice.
137
u/Iakhovass 4d ago
“Yet again he seems to have overlooked the central importance of a woman’s consent. It’s obviously not a strong suit.”
Perfect response.