A $2.4m payout made

as compensation to someone who would "never be able to work again" because she was allegedly raped has now dwindled to $50,000 after just three years.

Before anyone who know who I am talking about starts screaming at me "she was raped and she deserved every cent" let me say that, in law, it is still an allegation. It has not been "proven" in a court of law. It is unlikely it ever will be. 

There are two "standards of proof" here. One is "on the balance of probabilities" and the other is "beyond reasonable doubt". The first applies in civil cases and the second in criminal courses. It is much more difficult to reach the latter standard and rightly so. Once reached it can incarcerate people and could once have involved the death penalty. Get it wrong in the latter instance and you could end up putting an innocent person to death.

The criminal trial in this case was aborted twice. On one occasion it was because of juror misbehaviour but on the second it was said to be because of the distress it was causing the alleged victim. (Again I am using "alleged" because of lack of an outcome.) Then, quite suddenly, there was the huge payout in "compensation" for what had happened. It was paid because the alleged victim would no longer be able to work. She was said to be in a very fragile state. There were suggestions of suicidal thoughts and more.  We were told she did not get any support from her employer or one of her employer's staff. They were cast as uncaring and guilty of trying to cover it up. 

The saga has now dragged on for more than three years. It has been shown twice to be wrong but her employer is still being cast as the "bad guy". To do otherwise would bring into question that payout. It was made not by employer but by the present government. There has never been anything like it done before.  The payout was given with no strings attached and that alone should have rung alarm bells.

At very least the payout should have been put into a trust fund and spent very differently. It should have been conserved as far as possible until all matters had been resolved in the courts. When the alleged victim took up some employment then the funding should, at very least, have been reduced. She had shown herself capable of returning to work and returning in a very public role. She has married and done other things which suggest that her alleged fragile mental state has improved dramatically. 

On the other side people have been subject to serious defamation. They have had to fight their own battles with no financial support and, until now, no support in the media.There are still far too many people who are saying "serves her right" for allegedly failing to support the alleged victim. Even when the court has come down in their favour they are still being held responsible. 

They will go on being held responsible because the government of the day needs to be able to justify that payout. Some of those involved hold the highest positions in the land and to admit wrong doing could have extreme consequences.   

The whole episode stinks of corruption. There has been too much harm done. Whatever the consequences there needs to be an inquiry. We were the people who paid the compensation with our taxes.