It's a good thing for Clint Rickards' lawyer John Haigh that he's not held to the same standard of testimony as rape survivors. From the Sydney Morning Herald:
Rickards defence lawyer John Haigh QC told the woman she had got "absolutely the wrong man" and that the incident never happened.How can she have got the wrong man if it never happened? If Clint Rickards wasn't there then how can he instruct the lawyer on whether or not the incident happened?
Of course no-one is going to cross-examine John Haigh on the most traumatic event of his life. They're not going to call him a liar and claim that he can't be believed.They're not going to adjourn court when he starts crying and then start right back up again.
Don't even bother with everyone's right to legal representation - because this sort of representation is only the right of the rich. John Haigh is in this for the money and Clint Rickards is the only one who can afford him.
Apparently John Haigh also told the jury to disregard some erroneous information that has been in the public domain. I wonder what this information could be? All the information I've heard has been entirely roneous.
I have more to say about John Haigh's reported statements to the jury about a previous trial involving these men. But unfortunately suppression orders make it very difficult to do so - I will just say that the same suppression orders that stop me pointing out how very wrong John Haigh's argument is, may have the same affect on the crown.