Rape trial

Press, 25 November 1982, Page 20

Rape trial

Sir,—l was troubled to read (“The Press,” November 23) that five men were acquitted of rape, by an all-male jury, basically because the eye-wit-ness testimony of the victim was not considered sufficient to positively identify her attackers. Thi-e was no doubt thal the woman had been raped in the place she claimed

it had occurred. The implication of this verdict, is that, provided rapists commit their crimes in relative privacy, and do not hand their victims a signed confession, it cannot be “proved” that they commited the rape. Eye-witness testimony, which is accepted in other prosecutions, is apparently not good enough in rape trials. It is apparent that, in New Zealand, it is still the complainant who is on trial in rape cases—not the defend-. ant(s). The victim must prove herself to be a "plaster saint” before her testimony is acceptable to judge and jury.—Yours, G. HALL. November 23, 1982.

Sir,—Christchurch’s most recent gang-rape case highlights inequalities within our legal system. The accused rarely appear in the witnessbox and have at their disposal free legal counsel. The complainant must appear, often facing public humiliation and deliberate character assassination, she actually becomes “the accused.” The Accident Compensation Act at present provides for emotional “pain and suffering.” Once revised this will no longer hold true. All women suffer psychologically after the attack. Whether the court case is successful or not, the woman will remain the victim. I believe the victim should be offered professional counselling paid for out of the A.C.C.’s purse. Verdicts such as this one make a modkery of a woman’s right to freedom from harassment; there has been no justice for her.—Yours, etc., HEATHER BROWNNovember 24, 1982.