Group welcomes change to Crimes Act

Press, 13 December 1985, Page 26

Group welcomes change to Crimes Act

Wellington reporter The Society for Research on Women in New Zealand has welcomed the amendments to the Crimes Act, the Evidence Act, and the Summary Proceedings Act relevant to the law on rape. There were two highly significant changes in the new legislation, said the society’s national president, Ms Rosemary Barrington. First, the offence of “rape” had been introduced as one of two forms of sexual violence.

The Rape Law Reform Bill (No. 2) as introduced last year and on which public submissions had been made had taken “rape” as it had been known traditionally under the umbrella of “sexual violation,” she said. The society had agreed with this because it had also rendered the offence of rape “gender neutral.” The society had hoped the terminology would be continued, and might help to break

down the myths about rape and the negative attitude towards rape victims. There were now two kinds of sexual violation — unlawful sexual connection, which was gender neutral, and rape as committed by a man on a women.

Second, Ms Barrington said there was now a single penalty for all offences covered by the new legislation. The society supported this.

The effect of this was now to put the offence of inducing sexual connection by coercion on an equal basis with the offence of rape. The society saw this as an important policy statement by Parliament, she said. Earlier drafts of the legislation had said that if a person consented because another had used “undue influence, or abused a position of authority, or a commercial relationship” to obtain sexual advantage, it

was in some way a lesser form of assault.

There were also changes in the law on court procedures designed to reduce the trauma of rape victims while giving evidence in a trial. The society had hoped these changes would go further.

For example, Parliament had inserted the opportunity for the defendant to apply to the judge requiring a victim to give evidence orally instead of in written form, at the preliminary hearing.

“Can you imagine any defence counsel not applying to the judge?” said Ms Barrington. “Counsel will argue that it is necessary in the interests of justice for his client.” In the earlier drafts of the bill, it had been solely for the judge to determine whether evidence would be required to be given orally.

Another example was that now questions could not be asked of witnesses either “directly or indirectly” about the previous sexual experience or reputation of the complainant, she said.

That was a very weak form of additional protection for a complainant. The society would have to wait and see if lawyers modified their questioning during cross-examination, but it was unlikely any extra procedural protection would be given to rape victims by this legal change.

Ms Barrington said the society hoped the Minister of Justice, Mr Palmer, would do more research to evaluate the impact of these legal changes for victims of sexual violation.

Politicians had focused considerable attention on what would be provided by these changes. The society would like to see the changes monitored.