HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-02-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Personal Explanation

JUDICIAL SENTENCING

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (18:10): I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I acknowledge that, on Thursday 22 November 2007, I gave a press conference outside the District Court and published a media release in which I asserted that Marie Shaw is South Australia's softest judge and that in 2006 she never sentenced to gaol any of the 12 persons who appeared before her charged with rape or unlawful sexual intercourse. The statements I made were wrong. Of the 12 cases I said were before Judge Shaw in 2006, six of those cases resulted in a finding that the accused was not guilty and in the remaining six cases the prosecution decided not to proceed with the charges. Therefore, there was never any occasion for Judge Shaw to sentence any of the 12 persons charged with those offences because the question of sentence never arose.

My assertion made in the media release and in parliament later that day that Judge Shaw was Adelaide's softest judge was misguided and unjustified. I recognise that by making these assertions I have caused considerable distress and embarrassment to Judge Shaw. I unreservedly apologise for the harm which I have caused her. I unreservedly withdraw my call for Judge Shaw's removal from office.

I initially issued a press release on 29 October which complained about our high acquittal figures and which enclosed a table containing the full data set for 2006 broken down into numbers of acquittals, withdrawal cases and actual sentences imposed by each judge. The table accurately noted that Judge Shaw had resolved 12 rape and unlawful sexual intercourse cases in 2006 with six acquittals, five police withdrawals and one case withdrawn for other reasons, and no imprisonments. However, when I subsequently reissued the data following the Niehus case I made the error raised by Judge Shaw—and I have apologised to Judge Shaw for doing this—of enclosing an abridged version of the table which did not specify how the cases had been resolved. The abridged table, which included only the number of imprisonments for the number of cases heard, was quickly prepared in response to a media request. In retrospect, the media representatives should have been referred to the previous table which was provided a week or so before and which contained the full detail in the table.

I add that I do remain concerned about the number of acquittals granted to alleged sexual offenders and the overall conviction rates in general. Over a recent nine-year period SAPOL took reports for the total range of sexual offences from 17,344 people who identified themselves as victims of such crimes, at an average of 1,927 complaints to police per year. However, it is likely that the true number of victims is greater than that. According to a 1996 Australia-wide study, only 10 per cent of women who experienced sexual violence since the age of 15 actually reported the incident to police. When reporting an offence there is no guarantee that the complaint will be prosecuted. Relying on the South Australian figures, a rough guide is that approximately 85 per cent of sexual offences reported to police are not prosecuted because there is no reasonable prospect of conviction.

One bar to prosecution used in the statute of limitations for sexual offences has now been removed due, largely, to a bill introduced by Family First. A select committee report into the statute of limitations issue noted that, of the small number of sexual offenders who were prosecuted, fewer than half of those prosecutions resulted in a conviction.

In 2006, of the 150 cases of unlawful sexual intercourse and rape dealt with by the District Court, 39.3 per cent of cases resulted in imprisonment whether suspended or actual; 1.3 per cent of cases were resolved without conviction; and the acquittal rate was 28 per cent, with another 31.4 per cent of cases not being proceeded with for one reason or another. Victims of sexual abuse are required to jump through a number of hoops to achieve justice. The greatest of these hoops for victims is summoning the courage in the first place to speak to police about their abuser; the next is for police to have enough evidence to prosecute; and the final hoop is in securing a conviction. Family First will continue to do everything possible it can to fight for the rights of victims of sexual offenders and those subject to such horrendous crime.

At 18:15 the council adjourned until Wednesday 13 February 2008 at 14:15.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT