Four changes to rape hearing procedures

Press, 15 December 1983, Page 30

Four changes to rape hearing procedures

Parliamentary reporter Big changes to the law of evidence and court procedures for hearing rape cases are contained in the Rape Reform Bill, which was introduced in Parliament by the Minister of Justice, Mr McLay, this week. Clause 8 does away with the rule that a warning must be given if the evidence by complainants in sexual cases is not corroborated by independent evidence. “The warning that it is unsafe or dangerous to convict in the absence of corroboration of the complainant’s evidence harks back to the time when women were thought to be naturally untruthful and spiteful in sexual matters — one of the great myths of rape,” said the Minister of Justice, Mr McLay. In recent times there had been instances of elderly women raped in their own homes by intruders. Even in such cases, under the law at present, a judge

was to warn the jury of the danger of convicting’ on her uncorroborated evidence. “Why such a woman should be regarded as naturally untruthful and spiteful is beyond my understanding,” he said. It was now widely accepted by judges, lawyers, and commentators that there was no justification for an absolute requirement that a corroboration warning be given in every case. It would still be open to a judge, in a particular case, to indicate that the circumstances were such that before convicting it would be wise to consider if there were any corroboration. “The present law is based almost entirely on myths and prejudices that have been enshrined as a legal rule, and there is no place for such prejudice in a modern statute,” Mr McLay said. Moreover, the form of the warning was very confusing to juries, suggesting as it did that they should not convict in the absence of corroboration, because the

complainant was likely to be unreliable. Submissions on the Rape Study had been strongly in favour of abolishing ' the mandatory corroboration warning, he said. The bill makes four big changes to court procedures for handling rape complaints: © The complainant will not have to appear at the preliminary hearing and give oral evidence, unless the judge directs otherwise. © She may be required to give oral evidence only if the judge considers that evidence is insufficient to put the defendant on trial, or that it is indispensible in the interests of justice. © Every preliminary hearing of a charge of rape will be presided over by a District Court judge. Mr McLay said there was strong support for this in the submissions on the Rape Study. It was not intended to reflect on Justices of the Peace. The object was to secure the highest possible degree of control over the proceedings particularly if

the complainant did have to appear. © If the complainant does give oral evidence at the preliminary hearing, the court will be cleared for the period of that evidence, except for people engaged in the proceedings and accredited journalists. The same provisions for mandatory clearing will apply while the complainant is giving evidence at the trial itself. Mr McLay said there had been recent indications from the police and groups representing the interest of complainants that this was necessary. “The presence of large numbers of the defendant's ‘friends’ — often fellow gang members — in the court often has the effect of intimidating the victim while she is giving her evidence,” he said. ® The court will be given specific power to forbid the reporting (by the news media) of explicit details of criminal acts alleged to have been performed on the victim.