Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: The Criminal Procedure (Sexual Assault Case Management) Amendment Bill amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to allow a judge other than the trial judge to make binding determinations about evidence and procedural matters relevant to sexual assault trials. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS] annual report entitled “Recorded Crime—Victims, Australia”, the rate of reported sexual assault has increased in the period 1993-2003. In 1993 the rate was 69 recorded victims of sexual assault per 100,000 persons. By 2003 the rate had steadily climbed to 92 reported victims per 100,000 persons. This increase does not necessarily reflect an increase in the prevalence of sexual assault, but is likely to be influenced by an increase in the reporting of incidents to police and for successful clear-up rates.

Victimisation surveys such as the ABS National Crime and Safety Survey and the Australian component of the International Violence Against Women Survey suggest that between 12 per cent and 20 per cent of sexual assaults against women are reported to police—a reporting rate lower than for other major crime categories. In 2003, the last year for which ABS data is available, 82 per cent of recorded sexual assault victims were female. Why is it that sexual assault victims are reticent to report their assault to the police? There have been many studies conducted about this. Perhaps one of the most elucidating studies carried out on the response of sexual assault victims to the crime perpetrated against them is entitled “A study of women’s help-seeking decisions and service responses to sexual assault”, prepared by the Australian Institute of Criminology for the Australian Government’s Office for Women in June 2005. The report states:

The multiple dimensions and distinct strategies involved in help-seeking are not captured by analyses in which victim decision-making is conceptualized only in terms of seeking legal redress. This nuanced analysis of victim responses indicates that, distinct from the idea that non-reporting is a passive response to sexual victimization:

Seeking help from family and friends suggests that victims are actively engaged in a process of attempting to deal with the aftermath of crime. Although help from family and friends does not necessarily bring about justice-based solutions to criminal victimization, help from informal networks provides social support, comfort, and other tangible resources to crime victims.

It is important to note that current research focuses less on asking why women do not report to police and more on understanding the meaning of different help-seeking decisions from the survivor’s perspective. The actions taken by a sexual assault victim to seek help are multi-faceted. Recourse to legal redress is but one option available to sexual assault victims, but few make their way down that lonely and difficult path. The effect of this bill will be to alleviate or mitigate, in some way, the trauma that sexual assault victims can suffer in the process of seeking redress for the actions perpetrated against them. The bill will allow trial proceedings to continue in a less stunted fashion. As we are all very well aware, court proceedings can be stressful for all parties involved, whatever emotional and/or physical fortitude those parties may have.

Delays in proceedings can exacerbate the stress that a person may experience, none the more so than for victims attesting in criminal proceedings relating to sexual assault. Apart from the initial assault suffered by the victim, criminal proceedings can act as a vehicle for reopening suffering and trauma experienced by the victim. Thus delay in such criminal proceedings can tend to cause secondary trauma for complainants. The current law provides that rulings on the admissibility of evidence by a judge other than the trial judge are not currently binding—that is, such rulings may be overturned or questioned within the trial framework. Further, under current legislation, it is not possible to ensure that the same judge will deal with both the pre-trial hearing and the trial.

It is a fair assumption that if there are two judges—pre-trial and at trial—dealing with the case, it will take more time for those judges to familiarise themselves with the circumstances of the case that they are involved in. That only adds to the trauma of the female victim. The proposed legislation will make a ruling given by a judge in a pre-trial hearing binding on the trial judge serving to minimise the stress and trauma of giving evidence for sexual assault witnesses. However, in cases where the pre-trial order is inconsistent with an order made on appeal, or if in the opinion of the trial judge it would not be in the interests of justice for the order to be binding, the ruling will not be binding on the trial judge.

“Trial” is defined by the bill as the date on which the accused is arraigned—that is, brought before the court to answer an indictment or before the tribunal of fact, that is, the jury or judge sitting alone. The bill is in similar terms to a provision currently in place in Victoria and amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 in a number of ways, namely through introducing proposed section 130A. It is part of the ongoing process of reform in relation to improving the process surrounding sexual assault prosecutions for complainants.

I note the Federal Government’s national initiative to combat sexual assault is aimed at reducing and preventing sexual assault, and aims to implement strategies that address the increasing incidence of sexual assault in the community. Legal redress does not have any comparable capacity to bring about emotional healing as support services may. In fact, it can exacerbate the need for emotional healing. What is needed is the eradication of sexual assault through the creation of a culture that will not tolerate violence and that embraces a degree of respect for the emotional, physical and spiritual integrity of individuals, regardless of their gender. The Christian Democratic Party commends the bill to the House.

Tuesday, 29th November, 2005, 6:00 pm | Articles