Page 61 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 16 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
evidence against them. I do not believe that this leaves anyone open to allegations from children of being manipulated by evil and twisted adults. Cases will still have to satisfy the usual criteria about being proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The evidence before the court will have to give weight to the argument that the accused person did in fact commit a crime. Where this will be of most benefit, of course, is in cases of alleged sexual assault and abuse, which by their very nature mean that there are no corroborating witnesses. Children can now tell the court of their experiences and be heard. Workers who counsel incest victims cite non-belief as one of the most damaging aspects of the treatment of an occurrence of sexual assault by a relative. By giving young victims the chance to speak in court of their experiences, we are signalling that the court system is prepared to believe their version of events and giving them a means of coping with their distress and the feelings that arise after they have been violated. This does not mean that there will be an automatic belief of the alleged victim's evidence and a condemning of the alleged offender without a fair hearing, but it will present young children with an opportunity to be heard.
Courtroom convictions are by no means the whole solution for victims, and by changing this legislation we address only part of the overall problem of proving crimes against children. Even if children can now make uncorroborated claims against adults, the matter still needs to be proven in court and the victims need to be able to return to some form of normal life. At least one case in recent times has shown that, even after conviction and sentencing, often the trials of the children involved are not over as they struggle with the anger and fear engendered by the incident. Parents can continue to struggle to reassure violated children that they can feel safe. How much more difficult can this be when the court process is prolonged for years? After a harrowing process, the offender, even when found guilty, is often given a perceived lenient sentence.
Victims in the area of sexual assault need intensive and ongoing support and counselling so that they can resolve the distress and fear caused by their experiences. Often offenders are sentenced to rehabilitation for their behaviour or addictions, in some cases for 12 months or more. However, the support given to the victims is almost always not as intense. It has always been a dilemma for the parents of children who say that they have been assaulted: Do we proceed via the court system, which could take months, during which time warnings can be given against getting counselling for children in case it jeopardises the court case; or do we abandon the idea of retribution and possible prevention of reoffending by perpetrators, but get swift and speedy help for the children to come to terms with what has happened and overcome the rage, fear and other emotions that result from being violated?
Madam Speaker, I believe that the Assembly's action in amending the Evidence Act 1971 will allow for more offenders to be brought before the courts, and I hope that the efforts that have been made to date to expedite child sexual assault matters will continue. I also hope that in the long-term future we may begin to see at least a decline in such offences, as the adult population gets the message that children have been given the right to speak and will be heard.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .