Report comment

You mean the misleading first sentence of this article, rather than the judgment? As I read the relevant parts of the judgment, the judge is saying that he is so uncomfortable about the alleged perpetrator XXing the alleged victim that he will not let it happen again in any case which he judges. Plainly, the case will then have to be adjourned so that the alleged perpetrator can get representation (paid or pro bono), in order to preserve his/her right to a fair trial. In other words, the burden will be pushed onto lawyers who are prepared to do the advocacy for nothing (or next to nothing).