Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Suppression Orders SUPPRESSION ORDERS The Hon. S.G. WADE Legislative Council SUPPRESSION ORDERS The Hon. S.G. WADE (14:29): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for the Status of Women a question relating to suppression orders. Leave granted. The Hon. S.G. WADE Legislative Council The Hon. S.G. WADE: On the basis of police statistics, women are four times more likely to be the victims of sexual offences in South Australia than men. In July 1975 the Criminal Law and Penal Methods Reform Committee, chaired by Roma Mitchell, recommended a general suppression of the identity of the accused in criminal cases. This recommendation was not adopted. However, in March 1976, the committee delivered a special report concerning the law relating to rape and other sexual offences in which the committee expressed the view that: A charge of rape should carry with it no greater and no less immunity from publicity than any other prosecution for a serious offence. Nonetheless, automatic suppression orders were introduced in 1976. Consistent with this position of the Mitchell committee, Justice Martin recently recommended to the government that South Australia's automatic suppression orders in sexual offence cases should be abolished. Does the minister support the government's maintenance of special protection for people charged with sexual offences, which are overwhelmingly against women, in relation to suppression orders? The Hon. G.E. GAGO Legislative Council Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (14:29): I thank the honourable member for his most important question. Indeed, this is an area that has some very serious complexities around it, because we know that female victims of sexual offences often do need considerable protection, particularly those women who could be in a domestic violence situation where sexual assault forms part of the perpetration of that offence. My understanding of the theory or the principles behind the suppression of identity for particular offences is that they have been put in place to protect victims, which is a very important thing coming from my portfolio responsibilities, particularly in relation to domestic violence where a sexual offence has been involved. Often there is a situation where the identity of the victim, and particularly anything that might identify where her or her children might be, is quite critical to their safety and wellbeing. The Attorney-General recently announced that the state government would amend the Evidence Act, allowing courts to have the power to lift suppression of the details of people who are accused of sexual crimes. My understanding is that, after consideration of a report into the matter by the former Supreme Court judge, Brian Martin QC, the government decided that changes were necessary. The advice I have received is that the government is of the view that the courts are in the best position to make judgements, and changes to the act will see judges being able to make those judgements to assess on a case-by-case basis. The suppression could be lifted during an investigation or after a person has been charged. For example, if the police came forward and said, 'We believe that the publication of the details of this matter will assist us in finding a witness or other potential victims,' the court would be in a position to be able to make that order. It is my understanding that the government feels that the time is not right to lift suppression measures in their entirety in relation to sexual offences. One of the examples that I have already given here today is the situation of domestic violence, where a sexual offence has occurred—that might constitute an exemption. The question is whether or not, in any way, that decision prejudices a fair trial. I think that is what would be clearly in the forefront of a judge's mind when they made their considerations as to whether or not to lift suppression orders. I understand that suppression orders are often broken by anonymous people online, unfortunately, and the government would prefer that a national examination of this issue be completed before making any decision about broader reforms in that particular area.