Page 1673 - Week 06 - Thursday, 23 July 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
As we all know, but I am sure that we continue to underestimate, the impacts of child sexual abuse are far-reaching and, in many cases, devastating. There is sufficient scientific evidence to show that such abuse can permanently affect the neuropathways of the brain. Sexual abuse can be a life-threatening experience which can leave the victim feeling numb, shocked and overwhelmed.
Survivors often feel unable to trust anyone, fear forming relationships, and can develop significant mental health issues or resort to drug and alcohol use to numb the pain. This can last a lifetime. The costs to society are enormous and can encapsulate such psychological and emotional damage to a victim that it prevents them from being able to participate fully in life’s opportunities, ever needing to rely on a range of human services to get by. It thereby costs us, as a society, and the individuals economically as well.
Importantly, this legislation signifies that the issue of child sexual abuse is taken seriously and makes it clear that developing certain relationships between an adult and a child or a young person in special care is a crime. The legislation defines what is meant by special care and includes children and young people in all contexts where they are entrusted to an adult.
What is most important here is the inclusion of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child or young person as an offence in and of itself without the need to prove specific events. We know all too well the number of sexual abuse cases that have failed because a child or young person cannot remember the specific day a traumatic sexual abuse incident occurred or what the defendant was wearing on that day, for example.
I acknowledge that it is very difficult to balance the rights of the defendant with the rights of a child or young person, and that concerns have been raised regarding the potential for double jeopardy with retrospective application of this legislation. However, whilst it is possible that there may be some technical issues that need to be ironed out, I do believe that the legislation has been drafted with an intent to capture persistent child abuse offences as recommended by the royal commission and that the legislation ensures that the probative value of such evidence outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant.
That is why I also support the introduction of tendency and coincidence evidence to be admissible in matters dealing with child sexual abuse. Where similar allegations have been made by a number of victims against an alleged offender, this must surely be taken into account. The likelihood of all victims colluding to fabricate such allegations is slim, and it is time that the justice system caught up with this. Historically, the system has erred on the side of the rights of the defendant by not allowing similarity of allegations to be raised. This legislation sends an important message to the community that repeat offenders are now more likely to be caught. This tendency and coincidence evidence is vitally important because we all know that the average paedophile has more than one victim, with some research suggesting an average number of 70 child victims to an individual offender.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video