Page 1586 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 17 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
not being aware of issues of gender bias. It is a very healthy thing that there is that debate. It has been an unhealthy thing, perhaps, that in the past in Australia there has been a tendency to think that the judiciary are above criticism. They are not. They are servants of the public in much the same way that we are servants of the public, and they represent institutions that should be subject to open and constructive criticism.
Ron Cahill, for many years, has taken a very innovative approach to issues involving the way young people who are victims of crime are dealt with through the criminal justice system. The issue of video evidence was very much an initiative of Ron Cahill. He pioneered it here in the ACT. The fact that the ACT is seen as a landmark jurisdiction for this is very much a credit to the efforts of our Chief Magistrate. The fact that this Bill is going through this chamber tonight with general support is, again, a considerable tribute to the Chief Magistrate.
The experiment has, as we said, been subject to review by the Law Reform Commission. Ms Szuty had some quibbles about my speech and whether I had made it clear enough that we had taken a slightly different view on the issue of child defendants. I see that on balance she tended to agree with us, and Mr Humphries said that his instinct was to agree with the Attorney-General. I hope that that was a general statement of policy, Mr Humphries, because it is a very sound position to take; or was it just specific to this case?
Mr Humphries: I always worry when you agree with me, Terry.
MR CONNOLLY: There we go. There is a difference between the positions of the child victim and the child defendant. The child defendant could well be a 17-year-old accused of a quite nasty and violent crime. At this stage we are being, perhaps, a little cautious in saying, "Let us go only this far". I accept the suggestion by Ms Szuty and Mr Humphries that we should keep an eye on this. I can assure the Assembly that this issue will be revisited. It will be revisited if only because it is my ambition that, when this has been in place for some time in the superior courts for child evidence before juries, we go the next step and provide that other vulnerable witnesses are entitled to receive this protection.
One of the greatest criticisms of the Australian justice system - this runs right through the process - is that women who are victims of sexual assault feel that they are the ones who are on trial. Many members would have seen that ABC three-part series, a year or so ago now, entitled Without Consent, which documented the experience of a number of women who, in many cases, had been raped quite viciously, and the sense of humiliation and revictimisation that they felt as they were taken through the judicial system. They felt that it was not the criminal who was on trial; they were. The material that was given out in that program has been confirmed time and time again by academic studies, and it is the common perception of police.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .