No because defence dont rely on evidence. They defend against it. It is the job of prosecutors to introduce sufficient evidence for a conviction. Likewise police charge when they have a prima facie criminal case and then the courts do their thing. That's nonsense about the "flimsy" evidence.. in most sex offences (between adults) the key element at trial is always consent. And consent is almost always one persons word against another's.. unless they are bashed and raped you can almost guarantee that defences arguement will be the other person wanted it, because then evidence such as DNA become almost irrelevant.
Hang on? Are you saying defence councils don't submit evidence that could exonerate their client?
Um... ok, maybe I've taken liberties saying flimsy... but your sentence directly after you quote it, you talk about the key element being consent, and consent always being one persons word against the other.
And that's my point. In other cases, if someone, say makes a complaint of criminal damage to the police... they are not going to prosecute that person based only on the word of the complainant. They will need some tangible evidence that the accused has a case to answer.
But in the case of sexual assault, and I'm not even saying this is wrong, they must take the woman's word and prosecute. Rightly or wrongly, prosecute only on the word of a complainant is... if flimsy is not a fair word, is less rigorously considered than other prosecutions.
https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi288
As you wrote about the one persons word against the other:
Sexual assault cases involving adult victims often come down to the word of the victim against that of the defendant, with little or no corroborating evidence. As the probability of conviction relies on the victim's ability to articulate the events and convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that a crime occurred, her credibility is integral to prosecutorial decisions.
Listen, I don't like the Dragons, and stuff 'em. But I know from how our club has been treated over and over and ... sweet Caroline!, that the media beat up on the clubs, the fans, the players, ... and form the narrative. Especially our club. Let him have his day in court FFS. If he is guilty, screw him completely. He does come off as a shit on the field. But this is too serious a charge to prejudice his character off it.