Husbands’ immunity removed in rape bill

Press, 23 August 1984, Page 1

Husbands’ immunity removed in rape bill

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

in Wellington

Husbands will no longer have legal immunity if charged with raping their wives, under important new rape legislation introduced in Parliament yesterday.

The Rape Reform Bill (No. 2), differed from the legislation introduced by the National Government last year which had lapsed with the dissolution of Parliament, said the Minister of Justice, Mr Palmer. That bill had been sent to the Statutes Revision Committee for study and had received 140 submissions. The new No. 2 Bill reintroduces unchanged Parts II (on evidence) and 111 (on summary proceedings) from the 1983 legislation. But substantial changes had been made to Part I because of the submissions made previously, said Mr Palmer. The bill differs from the previous legislation in four main ways: ® The term “rape” is dropped in favour of the term “sexual violation.” @ The “spousal immunity” which in certain cases has protected a husband from a charge of “raping” his wife is dropped. ® New offences of obtaining sexual connection by coercion, and of compelling a person to submit to inde-

cent acts with animals, are created. © A complainant will be advised by the judge of the right to have a person of one’s choosing present in the courtroom when giving evidence, and the complainant’s address and occupation are not to be disclosed in court except by leave of the judge. Mr Palmer said that “sexual connection” would be used to describe the physical elements of the crime, while “sexual violation” would be the legal name of the crime. He said the bill had opted for a composite approach to rape rather than a tandem approach. A tandem approach would involve two offences being prosecuted — one for rape and one for any other aspect of the conduct. By using the composite approach, for which there was substantially more public suport, and by changing the name from r ‘rape,” the new legislation was able to include under one definition forced sexual intercourse, forced oral sex, forced anal sex, and violation by means

of an object. Because not all these were strictly “rape” as had been understood, but were all at least as repugnant as each other, “rape” had been changed to “sexual violation,” he said. The three main reasons for the change were: • The term “sexual violation” captured the essence of these crimes which involved a most injurious attack on a person’s physical integrity. • The choice of a new term might help to eliminate the myths surrounding the offence of “rape.” • It avoided the risk that juries might be reluctant to convict if they were asked to give a much wider interpretation to the traditional word “rape.” Mr Palmer asked those making submissions to Parliament on his No. 2 bill whether they preferred the composite or tandem approach. The legislation was supported by the Opposition parties, and has been referred to the Statutes Revision Committee for public comment.