•
Single parent household.
•
•
u o u s?
• •
T h e r e we r e n o w i t n e s s e s . D i d s h e l e a d h i m o n?
YES
H e's n o t a m i n d r e a d e r.
YES
YES
and highly subjective juror attitudes will perhaps expose themselves behind the jury deliberation room door. In mock Australian sexual assault trial studies on juror attitudes towards credibility, it was shown that males on average were less likely to judge a victim to be credible.⁸ Further, male jurors of lower income and of conservative political persuasion were found to be less favourable to victims. Stereotypical assumptions and biases emerged and it was discovered that forty-four percent of males and thirty-two percent of females believe that rape is a product of a male not being able to control his need or desire for sex. This implies that the responsibility should be removed or somewhat lessened because it was outside of their control.⁹ This does not reveal the reality of both the bias and unfairness in our legal system, yet the unjust narratives that continue to surround women and subsequently impede a victim’s access to justice and therefore, true gender equality, should be noted and acted upon. As French writes, the greatest achievement of the feminist movements of the 20th century is the exposure of a big, dirty secret of systematic female sexual assault and violence that has been hidden behind closed doors for centuries.¹⁰ Now, the challenge that faces the 21 st century is to provide real justice for those women brave enough to keep hauling the secrets out of the closet. it is the bias and demonisation of a woman pertaining to stereotypical narratives of women as a seductress or an unreliable liar that is destructive to the pursuit of justice, and the victim herself. As long as these narratives play out in the microcosm of the courtroom, women will not live in equality with our male counterparts. Until high rates of sexual violence decrease, male assumptions of physical, and mental dominance will reign free. Where there is a shortfall of evidence towards the victim’s lack of consent, a wide and dangerous discretion is placed in the hands of the jury. Those making up the jury must make a probability judgment on the oral or verbal testimony given. The arguments from the defence which will undoubtedly go to discrediting the victim’s statements and procure a lack of credibility and the surrounding context of the case.⁷ It is a natural consequence then, that in instances as such, personal
1
Marilyn French, The War against Women, (Ballantine Books, 1993).
2
Derek Goh and Stephanie Ramsey, ‘An update of long-term trends in
property and violent crime in New South Wales: 1990-2014’ (Issues Paper No 104) [NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, April 2015], 2. 3
R v Johns, (No. 1 of 1993), summing up to the jury by Justice Bollen, 24
August 1992, from the stated case to the SA Full Court, 4 January 1993. 4 As
quoted in P Easteal and C Feerick, ‘Sexual Assault by Male Partners:
Is the Licence Still Valid?’ (2005) 8 Flinders Journal of Law Reform 185, 186, 6. 5
Australian Law Reform Commission, Family Violence: A National Legal
Response, Report no 114 (2010). 6
Real Rape Law Coalition 1991a, Sexual Assault: The Law v. Women's
Experience, Victoria. 7 Australian
Institute of Criminology, Juror Attitudes and Biases in Sexual
Assault Cases, Report no 344, (August 2007), 1. 8
Ibid, 4.
9
Ibid.
10
Marilyn French, The War against Women, (Ballantine Books, 1993).
A RT I C L E S
21