Page 4400 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 30 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
He went on to say later on:
I think that you will find that their feeling -
that is, the feeling of people who had appeared in that situation -
is directed back at the court, because the decision has been made clearly by a judge, not by a human being.
That is, that if they were robed there would be a different reaction than if they were, in fact, in an informal mode. Mr Richardson, by the way, is the president of the Bar Association of the ACT.
I think, in summary, what Mr Richardson was saying was that respect for our court system, and for the decisions and the processes of our court system, and, in turn, compliance with our court system, based not merely on the fact that the Assembly has passed laws which say you shall not do this or you shall do that, but also to some extent on the trappings of the system. To some extent, that process produces results which might not be produced if the structure were a little less frightening, a little less intimidating.
Coming back to this Bill, it is undoubtedly true that appearances in sexual assault proceedings can be particularly traumatic for the women concerned. I do not wish for one instant to denigrate the experience that they have, to suggest that it is appropriate for our system generally to facilitate that kind of discomfort or worse that can be experienced by women in those circumstances. It is important to realise that it is not entirely a question of removing the pressure from witnesses in those circumstances. If there were no pressure on witnesses it is, I think, arguable that there would be less likelihood in some cases of truth being actually exposed by this process.
Clearly, Madam Speaker, when people go to court, as witnesses particularly, and particularly in criminal cases, it is very frequently the case that there will be incentive to tell lies. People will be in the position of wishing to escape a criminal charge, or, for some other reason, will wish not to tell the truth, and it is important to put a certain amount of pressure on people to tell the truth, notwithstanding their own interest in not doing so. I am not suggesting for one instant that women who appear in court are less likely to be truthful than men. I am not suggesting that there is more likelihood of people being untruthful in sexual assault cases.
But I pose this question: If we believe that it is important to take the pressure off people who appear in these cases, is there an argument for extending this to all people who appear in all criminal or civil matters in our courts? Why should anyone be placed under pressure when they appear as a witness? Why should anyone be placed under that pressure? If there is an argument for there being some pressure, we have to ask ourselves: What are the criteria we use for saying that some should have pressure placed on them and others should not? Why is it that some people should feel the intimidatory atmosphere of a room with oak panelling, and a person sitting on a bench, in a wig and gown, and tipstaffs, and lace and solemn oaths, and lawyers speaking in Latin? Why is it that that is appropriate in some circumstances but not in others?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .