Page 3508 - Week 09 - Thursday, 21 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Recently we saw a case where a complainant had to give evidence, again, for the fourth time, despite the fact that both the defence counsel and the prosecutor agreed to evidence going in. This is an area of the law which needs reform. This is an area of the law where we have a moral obligation—not only to the victims but to society—to reform the law.
I am not too sure if the Attorney-General has got this right. I have a great respect for Ken Archer, for example, and I have read an opinion by him. There might be a few issues there. There are some I disagree with, having a reasonable knowledge of it myself. There are other issues where he may have a point. There may well be teething problems. It is important for the attorney, or whoever might replace him if there is a change of government, to ensure that this area of the law is further amended if need be. I would hate to see further problems emerge as a result of this legislation.
Is the mark of a civilised society that it can protect its citizens, especially its most vulnerable citizens? Victims of sexual assault are often the most vulnerable citizens. Often sexual assaults are committed by family members or friends—so-called friends—people known to the victim. Sometimes they are horrendous crimes committed by animals, such as in the Anita Cobby rape and murder.
We have had a number of pretty horrendous crimes in the ACT. We have had a number of pretty nasty sexual assaults where, because of the system, people have got off who quite clearly were very much guilty. I have seen—and been powerless to act even though I objected a fair bit as a prosecutor—victims being cross-examined over the course of a full day or often even more than a day.
This law, as far as I can see, will ensure that a victim will be giving evidence once and cross-examined once. Yes, it will be a thorough cross-examination—I do not think anyone has a problem with that—but it will be a cross-examination that will be done, and the evidence will be given, in a sympathetic way. The victim will not have to front the animal—that is what they are, often: an animal—who perpetrated the crime. They will not have to go through that horrible trauma.
There are some sympathetic parts of this law which are well overdue and which will greatly assist in terms of the administration of justice. Justice is not about just bending over backwards for the rights of the accused. That is important. It is the mark of a fair society that even the worst animal—some of these people commit horrible crimes and are worse than animals—even the worst offender, has the right to be properly tried and his or her case proven beyond reasonable doubt. But we do not have to bend over backwards and forget the rights of the victim and, through the rights of the victim, the rights of society. There has to be a balance. In this area of the law, the balance has been far too much in favour of the accused for far too long. Other states have realised it, and it is about time the ACT did also.
I commend the attorney for at least bringing this forward. He flagged it last year. At the time, I said, “Why don’t you do it immediately?” Well, it is better late than never. He has now brought forward this legislation. This legislation will be passed tonight and it will be a significant boon for victims and for society.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .