A withdrawn charge is not a conviction. Yet across Australia, discontinued allegations are appearing on police checks, leaving individuals to defend themselves long after a case has collapsed.

In Australia’s justice system, a core tenet is the presumption of innocence.

A criminal charge is not a conviction, it is an allegation to be tested in our court. That test must meet the element of the offence at the requisite level beyond reasonable doubt. That is a high standard. Yet, a concerning pattern is undermining this fundamental principle and right, inflicting lasting personal and professional damage.

Since October 7 2023, I have seen a troubling trend in Australia where individuals are being charged with offences that, from the outset, have no reasonable prospect of success. These cases are based on often weak or politically motivated allegations, which are routinely withdrawn or struck out when they reach court. However, the victory is short lived. The real punishment begins when a withdrawn charge appears on a Nationally Coordinated Criminal History Check (NCCHC), a stain that can damage reputations and opportunities.

This bureaucratic weaponisation of the justice system inflicts a double injustice. First, public resources are wasted prosecuting cases designed more to intimidate and silence dissent than to legitimately pursue justice. Police resources, prosecution’s effort and precious court time are expended on matters doomed to fail. Second, and more concerning, the state then uses its own flawed system of the NCCHC to continue punishing the individual. The police check, a tool meant to ensure safety, becomes punitive, branding a person for an allegation that was legally insufficient to proceed.

A recent case, involving an application to an institution whom I shall not name for privacy reasons, exemplifies this systemic abuse. A professional found her registration was delayed because an NCCHC result revealed a single entry: “BEHAVE IN OFFENSIVE MANNER PUBLIC PLACE – STRUCK OUT/WITHDRAWN”. The institution’s subsequent letter to this professional, while acknowledging the withdrawal of the charge, stated the mere fact of the charge raised concerns requiring a full explanation. The professional was asked to detail the alleged conduct, identify victim(s) and reflect on her suitability for registration, which are an invasion of privacy and a demand to account for a legal nullity.

The reality, as outlined in a legal response to the institution, was wholly different. The prosecution had withdrawn the charge because the police brief of evidence was “legally defective” and that there was no crime actually committed but in an abundance of caution and pressure had to lay the charge. It was incomplete, materially inaccurate and had “fundamentally misidentified the true victim of the incident”. In fact, evidence presented to prosecution, including media footage, demonstrated unequivocally that the professional was the victim of a criminal offence she had initially reported to police, but was ignored. Prosecution’s case collapsed not on a technicality, but because she was being punished for speaking about the genocide committed against the Palestinians by Israel.

Yet, the institution, bound by procedure, was compelled to treat the line on the police check as a red flag. This is the crux of the problem, a withdrawn charge is not a neutral administrative notation. It is loaded and screams “criminal allegation” to employers, licensing bodies and agencies. The burden of proof shifts from the state to the individual, who must now explain why they are not guilty of something unproven and for which they were never convicted.

A withdrawn or struck out charge is not a conviction. It is, in fact, a formal declaration that the case lacked the legal evidentiary merit to proceed. For this to then resurface as a life altering mark is unjust. It tells citizens that the police can charge first, ask questions later and you will bear the consequences, regardless of the outcome. The effect is immense, potentially deterring individuals, particularly those in public facing professions, from engaging in lawful protests, rejecting genocide, reporting crimes they witness, or simply being present in contentious situations.

The presumption of innocence must extend beyond the courtroom. It must be embedded in the bureaucratic systems that govern our lives. We urgently need reform to ensure that withdrawn, struck out, or discontinued charges are removed from police checks. The default position must be to protect the innocent from suspicion. It is clear that we cannot rely on a adequate police investigation when it comes to political matters because of the heightened division in our community, so we’re told, but we must demand that police uphold their own investigative processes and treat all complaints equally with proper investigation for the fair and efficient administration of justice.

The professional in this case was ultimately a victim twice. First, of the initial incident, and second, of a system that punishes a person through a police check. We must demand a system where a legal victory is not followed by a penalty. True justice requires that when a court dismisses a case or the prosecution withdraws it, the record clearly reflects the finality of that decision. Once resolved in this manner, the matter should go no further, and the information should not continue to follow or burden the individual involved. The integrity of our legal system depends on it.