Submissions on marital rape

Press, 5 August 1983, Page 4

Submissions on marital rape

PA Wellington Husbands should not escape conviction’ for raping their wives, according to more than half the submissions on rape received by the Minister of Justice, Mr McLay.

Mr McLay received 111 responses to his call for submissions after the publication of the Rape Study Report in June. The topic to receive most mention in the submissions was that of spousal-immu-nity to rape conviction, which is provided under section 128 (3) of the Crimes Act. Of the 66 submissions which referred to the subject, 57 asked for the ingtaunity to be removed ana<the

other nine wanted the present law retained. Only one wanted a lesser penalty in cases of marital rape. The remainder said the law should draw no distinction between married and unmarried people. The Women’s Refuge Centre Society said that most women in a survey of users of their refuge reKrted they had been raped their husbands in the 12 months before coming to the refuge. The closing of the court during rape hearings was another topic to draw much interest. A frequent suggestion, made by 44 submissions, was that the court should be closed to the

public during rape trials. Another concern was that the complainant should not have to state her full name, address, and place of work in open court. The complainant should be able, as a normal procedure, to give her' evidence at the preliminary hearing in written form, said 26 of the submissions.

The Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Association criticised the system of recording evidence which required a witness to speak at an unnaturally slow pace so evidence could be transcribed directly by typewriter.

“Urgent consideration should’ve given to other

forms of recording,” the federation said. On consent to intercourse, 33 submissions called for a revision of the law to either shift the emphasis from the complainant’s consent, or lack of consent, to the accused’s actions. The Waikato women’s branch of the Labour Party called for a definition of objective criteria to produce evidence that consent was not given. The burden of proof was referred to in 29 submissions, only one of which specifically stated that there should be no change in the status quo. The New Zealand Law Society submitted that? on

the question of the burden of proof there should be no ■ departure from the basic concepts of criminal justice for one particular crime. The society also submitted that in practice consent was not a difficult concept and should remain purely a decision for the jury as a matter of fact in the particular case. Among those to give submissions were several individuals, women’s groups, church groups, political groups, the Maori Women’s Welfare League, the National Youth Council, trade unions, rape support groups and refuge centres and the Chief District Court Judge, Mr D. J. Sullivan.