Page 1210 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 11 April 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In reading the submissions received on the exposure draft of this legislation, and during the consultation process on my invasion of privacy bill last year, I was struck time and again by just how difficult it is for survivors of sexual assault to seek out and receive justice for the crimes perpetrated against them. As noted in the recent submission by the ACT Council of Social Service, survivors are impeded from reporting sexual assault because of the perceived and actual difficulties in successful prosecution. Not only that; accessing the justice system can often re-traumatise victims.
The definition of consent has a central function in determining the outcome of a sexual assault case. In the majority of cases, there is no physical evidence or impartial witness. The focus of the trial is thus on the competing evidence of the complainant and the defendant about whether or not the sexual activity was consensual. Our legal system’s approach to sexual offences remains inadequate, despite the considerable headway the ACT government has made over recent years to improve this matter. Unjust outcomes in the court in turn reinforce rape myths and perpetuate patterns of non-reporting by victims and non-enforcement of sexual assault laws by police, prosecutors and trial judges in subsequent cases.
Just a few weeks ago I was disappointed to read some of the comments in a report by the Canberra Times about a recent sexual assault case in the ACT. The female complainant was described by the defendant’s counsel as being “utterly discredited” and her evidence as “no more than plausible”. According to the comments in the article, she was discredited due to her apologetic manner of responding to the lawyer’s questioning and even for the fact that she remained in the public gallery in the court following her testimony. I would really like to know how wanting to hear the proceedings from which you are seeking an outcome can be regarded as in any way a character flaw.
By contrast, when the defendant was criticised for being too good a witness, his lawyer stated, “He’s not a professional witness; he’s a soldier.” When he was acquitted of the charges, on leaving the court he said, “I can’t wait to get on with my life and my career in the Army.” But the article did not have anything from the complainant. I can well understand why, under the circumstances, she did not want to say anything to the media. But this means that, once again, the voice of the alleged assault victim is silent. We hear only one point of view. I am not in a position to comment on the facts of the case or in any way to suggest that I am questioning the verdict, but all this does is bring up again that sexual assault is a gendered issue. It is an area where greater clarification is definitely needed.
We should remember, of course, that men can also be victims of sexual assault and other assault. According to the 2017 ABS personal safety survey, men are more likely to have experienced non-sexual violence since the age of 15. But the statistics show that more often women are the victims of sexual assault and more often it is perpetrated by men. One in five women have experienced sexual violence since the age of 15, whilst for men this figure is one in 20—still too high, of course. The same ABS survey showed that 87 per cent of women were most likely to experience sexual assault by a male they knew. The location was most likely to be in the respondent’s
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video