Sex by coercion an offence in Rape Law Reform Bill

Press, 7 August 1985, Page 8

Sex by coercion an offence in Rape Law Reform Bill

PA Wellington Parliament yesterday agreed to include a new offence in the Rape Law Reform Bill (No. 2) inducing sexual connection by coercion. Tabling the Justice and Law Reform Select Committee’s report in Parliament yesterday, Mr T. C. Mallard (Lab., Hamilton West), said the new offence was the most important amendment suggested by the committee as it introduced a whole new area in rape law. “It introduces the notion of consent being given due to threat or commercial relationship. “It introduces a whole new area in the rape law where one can be convicted of sexual violation through having used undue influence either in a commercial position or in some other position of authority to cause sexual connection.” Mr Mallard also saicLthe committee had reeom-

mended a change in the definition of sexual violation, which essentially reintroduced the word “rape” to the bill. He said there was also a change in the question of corroboration in sexual cases; increasing the discretion given to judges where corroboration of evidence was not present. “This means the judge is not obliged to make any comment at all on the question of corroboration, and, if the judge decides to make a comment, there is no restriction as to the form of words.” The Opposition spokesman on justice, Mr P. C. East (Rotorua), said the Opposition was in broad agreement with the aims of the bill, but disagreed with some of the provisions. He said he felt the legislation started on the wrong basis. “It starts on the basis that a considerable number of the persons accused of rape are escaping convic-

tion.” Mr East said the long established principle in New Zealand law was that in a trial for sexual assault or rape, the issue of consent was a subjective one to be. judged by a jury. The bill now made it an objective test as to whether the accused thought the complainant was consenting or not. Mr East said the new offence of inducing sexual connection by coercion was also a cause of concern. “It will be an offence now for a person, to have sexual intercourse with another if they have held out, for instance, some hope of advancement for somebody in a job and that advancement is not forthcoming.” Mr East said the Opposition was pleased that the offence of rape had been retained. “If we abolish the offence of rape we must necessarily at least some years, 7- confusion in the

minds of the jury. On the maximum penalties for rape, Mr East said the Opposition believed that courts should impose longer penalties for rape. The maximum penalty should be increased from 14 years imprisonment to 20 years. Miss Ruth Richardson (Nat., Selwyn) said women in their submissions to the select committee had made it clear they did not accept a hierarchy of offences and obscenities to women. The terminology was designed to achieve some attitudinal reform because the submissions acknowledged that there were a number of unhelpful myths which did not advance the position of women or victims. “Those myths ought to be dispelled in a contemporary society.” She believed that the definition of sexual violation best described how victims felt. But she warned that she would not want the reten-

tion of the word rape to be a licence for any lawyer, jury or judge that the myths were to be perpetuated. “Nor do I want it to be a licence to the view which prevails in some quarters that we can in fact establish a hierarcy of offences.” Mrs Margaret Austin (Lab., Yaldhurst) said one of the other intentions of the new terminology was to transfer stigma from the victim to the perpetrator of the crime. The removal of spousal immunity also raised the compulsion of a spouse to give evidence against the other. That might have to be considered at a later date, she said. Dr M. J. Cullen (Lab., St Kilda) said the essential principle of the bill was the right of a person to control own body and his or her sexual relationships. The committee’s report was agreed to and the bill was set down for a second reading next sitting day.