Attorneys-General crackdown on conduct in Australian rape cases | The Australian

An investigation into juryless rape trials, a crackdown on ­“inappropriate” questions from defence lawyers and a ban on wigs and gowns in court are part of a blueprint to overhaul the justice system’s approach to sexual ­assault cases.

The report outlines “specialist measures” to break down barriers that prevent victims from reporting sexual assaults, and reduce the risk of retraumatisation during trial. “The literature indicates that appearing in court at the trial – and, in particular, cross-examination – is one of the most intensely stressful experiences for victim-survivors in the whole process of seeking justice, and a formidable barrier to seeking justice” the report, compiled by CQUniversity College of Law and the Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research, reads.
[Ed: Not convinced this is a good idea. The Family Court does not have juries or wigs and gowns and it is an extremely traumatic court for women. Indeed many women are calling for juries to determine family law cases due to the poor performance of the judiciary protecting women from perpetrators of violence using the legal process to further victimise them.]

Source: Attorneys-General crackdown on conduct in Australian rape cases | The Australian

4 thoughts on “Attorneys-General crackdown on conduct in Australian rape cases | The Australian”

  1. Oh dear! How blinkered. Anyone who suggests judge-only rape trials is not familiarising themselves with the way judges address rape trials. If juries err, look to judicial directions. Of course this is not universal, but a start might be to actually read Longman 1989 and the High Court reversal of a Western Australian case where the trial judge did rule well and the Western Australian Supreme Court in its Criminal Appeal upheld the trial judge. Then the High Court brought to bear its judicial ‘wisdom’ (sic) setting rape trials back into the 17th century. Say NO to rape trials and NO to the poor judgment of Attorneys-General who cannot see the reality of judicial ‘reasoning’ before their eyes. Why don’t they read the judgments? why don’t they read the critiques! Goddess bless us!

  2. I meant NO to judge-only rape trials … regrets cannot correct this in original post … also meant in its Criminal Appeal mode …

    1. Furthermore, the problem with rape trials will not be solved by making them different from other trials – the very problem is that they already *are* different from other trials. What other trials are there, where judges allow in irrelevant ‘evidence’ which should be ruled inadmissible, or admissible evidence that should be ruled out as allowing it in will prejudice the proper and effective decision-making process. As soon as more difference is introduced – rest assured that there will be no improvement – to the contrary likely to be the precise opposite. The entrenched reality of sexism in the judiciary and in the court and ‘justice’ system will hardly be corrected by entrenching it further – which judge-only trials and closed courts (along with video evidence and remote witness boxes etc) will assuredly do. The risible ‘solution’ to witnesses experiencing isolation and trauma when giving evidence from a remote witness box is, in Victoria (and approved and hoorayed by the Bar including the Women Barristers Association as I understand it – if you can confirm I am wrong in this good) is providing a dog as companion. They clearly haven’t taken the time to read Louise Milligan’s Witness – honestly. Please read some already-done research before haring off after more and more and more research based on/in patriarchal ‘ideas’ about rape, courts, judiciary, how-it-can-be-fixed etc … The struggle, clearly, is endless …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.