Page 4411 - Week 12 - Thursday, 24 October 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
For too long we have not listened to children when they have spoken out about being subjected to sexual abuse. That was a clear theme in the evidence provided to the royal commission. But also the problem has been that, even when children were believed, the criminal justice process was often too inaccessible and inappropriate for them to be able to provide evidence in a way that enabled the carriage of justice.
The same, of course, can be said for vulnerable adults. We already know that women with disabilities are particularly at risk of sexual violence. The rate of sexual violence against women with intellectual disability has been reported to be as high as 90 per cent. Think about that. Ninety per cent! That is almost all of them. That is nine out of 10. For men with intellectual disability, it is almost as bad. The rate is about 60 per cent, six out of 10.
All too often, adults with intellectual disabilities have struggled to be believed. Even then, if they are believed, they struggle to provide evidence in a way that will allow a trial to proceed. Adults with a disability, but particularly intellectual disability, are easily exploited and abused because of their vulnerability. Often, just like children, they have communication difficulties which prevent them from even telling anyone what is going on, let alone the ability to give clear and strong evidence that would hold up in court. Intermediaries in such instances would assist enormously.
I am aware that the ACT government already provides assistance to vulnerable witnesses, including victims of sexual assault, by special measures, such as using recordings of police interviews as best evidence in court and providing a remote witness facility for vulnerable witnesses. The introduction of intermediaries builds on this and allows for all people with communication difficulties, be they child or adult, whether victim, witness or alleged offender, to be assisted to communicate in a safe way that is heard and understood.
Depending on the needs of individual witnesses, intermediaries may advise the police, lawyers and the court on such issues as frequencies of breaks, developmentally appropriate vocabulary, question construction, comprehension, speech, sound, intelligibility, non-verbal communication issues, the use of models and aids, and how cultural norms may affect the witness’s communication of evidence to the police and in court.
Importantly, an intermediary’s paramount duty will be to the court. Their role is to impartially assess vulnerable witnesses’ communication capacity and advise them on how to ensure communication in the contexts of criminal investigative interview and when giving evidence at trial.
I support the introduction of ground rules hearings, which will be used to set parameters for communication. Ground rules hearings will contribute to improving the trial process for everyone involved and will ensure that people who need support to communicate are given that support. It will be necessary for such hearings to occur where there are communication difficulties. I am pleased to see that the courts can request such a hearing on a case-by-case basis if communication difficulties are being experienced by an adult.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video