Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 3 Hansard (23 October) . . Page.. 4058 ..

MS TUCKER

the truth will out in the face-to-face setting and that the experience of confronting is likely to flush out the false accuser. The problems for this assumption are:

the court is not today an environment conducive to developing understanding in the way that, for example in a restorative justice conference, both accuser and the accused are supported and the main emphasis is on their validity as human beings, with a wrong to right. In a court, the main emphasis is on the fight, on dragging down the opponent. In rape trials in particular, this re-creates the power imbalance that exists in sexual assault, and the attempt to undermine credibility too often draws on shameful stereotypes of women and cultural values ascribed to a woman's responsibility for "her honour".

sexual assault still involves a lot of shame, and still women, as well as men, have in their socialisation some lingering notions of there being two types of women-the Madonna/whore complex. This is a cultural shame in a woman being raped. There is often still a lingering idea that somehow a victim of sexual assault "asked for it"and that she is tainted. We do not go as far in this country as taking that as evidence of adultery and do not go as far as punishing a woman's adultery by stoning. But this is part of a similar-gendered attitude to sexual relationships and to sexual morality.

for male victims of sexual assault, who are also in the vast majority of cases assaulted by a male whom they know, there is also shame steeped in the cultural homophobia which also leads to unacceptably high rates of suicide among young gay people.

a face-off in these circumstances is often not in the interests of justice and it is questionable that it achieves much in the way of false accusations.

By making evidence by audiovisual link the standard mode, this bill, I believe, removes much of the problem of implying guilt. If the use of audiovisual evidence were decided in each case, then there would be an implicit message that this is a true accuser or, conversely, this is not a true accuser.

Secondly, by the standard warning at section 46, the jury is freshly reminded that this is standard, not a judgment on the merits of a particular case. The evidence is still given inside of the court and the person giving evidence can see the courtroom. The evidence is still recorded and is still subject to cross-examination. By creating some physical space and so removing one aspect of reliving the physical event for people who were sexually assaulted, the person giving evidence is likely to be more in control of their emotions and more able to give clear evidence.

The problem of revictimising a possible victim of sexual assault is not a light matter. If the effectiveness of cross-examination relies on a deep personal humiliation and shaming, surely it is not likely to produce good evidence. As I mentioned earlier, this is a consideration that our courts must grapple with for victims of all crimes, and looking at more restorative models is one way to go more generally. In the case of rape trials, the use of audiovisual is a method that had been tried and developed and I believe it could be an important improvement to these trials.

I would also like to respond to the scrutiny of bills committee report's comments on the "rape shield"provisions in division 4.4, which is about prohibiting evidence related to

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .