Jump to content
PurpleTiger

"Victoria blocks sexual assault victims from using real names" (trigger warning)

Recommended Posts

PurpleTiger

Saw this article on my Facebook feed - ""Victoria blocks sexual assault victims from using real names""

LINK

Quote

 

Tens of thousands of sexual assault survivors in Victoria have been stripped of their legal right to tell their stories using their real names.

The changes to the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act – which were quietly introduced in February – silence all sexual assault victims whose offenders have been found guilty, by banning them from ever speaking out under their real identities.

 

 

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seayork2002
Posted (edited)

Apart from being totally appalled by it - what is their reasoning? (not saying I agree with it but want to know why they have done it?)

I better before someone has a go, I am asking why the real  names are not allowed to be used nothing else

Edited by seayork2002
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
caitiri
Posted (edited)

I saw this the morning and thought WTF what have they done it’s archaic.  
 

initially I though no someone’s stuffed up this can’t be true.  Please someone tell me it’s not true?

Edited by caitiri
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dustyblue

Exactly @seayork2002 what on earth is the goal here supposed to be? Is it just a really misguided attempt to 'protect' the victims... as in, you won't have to have your private shame made public? Jeez I hope not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
magic_marker

There has been nothing in the news about it and l would think that there would be many, many organisations taking issue with it.

Yet there is a gofundme for it. Do l sound sceptical?

How can we find out if this is even factual?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
caitiri

I’ve been looking on and off this morning @magic_marker but all I can find is the news.com article which links back to the go fund me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chicken Pie

makes no sense to me, if i as a victim want to tell my story i should be able to....its really protecting the pedo's etc indirectly if you read some of the stories in that article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lucrezia Bauble

there was a narrow exception I thought in the Vic legislation that if the victim was over 18 and they consented to the publication then that was a defence to naming them - however this exception conflicts with the new s 4 1 C A - which is a narrower exception. The Victorian Bar is critical  of it, it’s ambiguous - here is their submission - 

https://www.vicbar.com.au/sites/default/files/VLRC_Contempt of Court Consultation Paper-W_0.pdf

sorry, it’s long (written by barristers) - their comments are on around page 168 i think, from memory.

most jurisdictions have statutory prohibitions on identifying victims of sexual assault (without their permission) - which makes sense, as their privacy should be protected. If the victims *want* to tell their story though, they certainly should be able to. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seayork2002
1 minute ago, Lucrezia Bauble said:

there was a narrow exception I thought in the Vic legislation that if the victim was over 18 and they consented to the publication then that was a defence to naming them - however this exception conflicts with the new s 4 1 C A - which is a narrower exception. The Victorian Bar is critical  of it, it’s ambiguous - here is their submission - 

https://www.vicbar.com.au/sites/default/files/VLRC_Contempt of Court Consultation Paper-W_0.pdf

sorry, it’s long (written by barristers) - their comments are on around page 168 i think, from memory.

most jurisdictions have statutory prohibitions on identifying victims of sexual assault (without their permission) - which makes sense, as their privacy should be protected. If the victims *want* to tell their story though, they certainly should be able to. 

 

Yeah sorry in my PP I was meaning about not naming perpetrators, victims have every right to their privacy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lucrezia Bauble

sometimes the names of the perpetrators are suppressed - particularly if naming them might indirectly identify a victim .

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BornToLove
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Lucrezia Bauble said:

sometimes the names of the perpetrators are suppressed - particularly if naming them might indirectly identify a victim .

 

Yes, that’s what I was thinking. Is this a way to get around identifying other victims such as a family group (siblings, cousins, etc). 
 

eta - I don’t agree with the law, just trying to understand why it was put in place 

Edited by BornToLove
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*bucket*

 

5 hours ago, Lucrezia Bauble said:

sometimes the names of the perpetrators are suppressed - particularly if naming them might indirectly identify a victim .

 

Is a victim allowed to name a perpetrator? Say if the perpetrator's name was suppressed because it may identify the victim, can the victim publicly identify the perp?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lucrezia Bauble
3 minutes ago, *bucket* said:

 

Is a victim allowed to name a perpetrator? Say if the perpetrator's name was suppressed because it may identify the victim, can the victim publicly identify the perp?

I think under this amendment to the Vic Act - no. if naming the perp might identify the victim, then they can only do that via a court order. It’s ludicrous - and the word is in legal circles it’s a drafting error - because the second reading speech from the vic AG seemed to imply they were  fixing an existing issue around suppression orders, but they’ve made it worse! 

several state jurisdictions have statutory restrictions on naming the perp before they’ve been committed to trial - and the issue is across all states that where naming the perp would indirectly identify the victim, then you can’t UNLESS the victim consents (and the perp has been found guilty) . it’s all really odd - Victoria is a really secretive jurisdiction though - I work in media law and the amount of suppression orders  that come in from Vic is double, sometimes triple than what comes in from other states and territories. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kadoodle
22 hours ago, *bucket* said:

 

Is a victim allowed to name a perpetrator? Say if the perpetrator's name was suppressed because it may identify the victim, can the victim publicly identify the perp?

No. I think it’s to do with potential vigilantism, or for the protection of third parties. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Etta

I heard today (on ABC radio - possibly on the news) it is to protect the identity of other victims of the same perp. And for this reason, it makes sense in some cases. Especially if the perp is a family member.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lucrezia Bauble

so a Media law senior counsel who we brief from time to time reckons Nina Funnell’s interpretation is wrong, or possibly premature until a court looks at the new provision - there is an old defence of consent where proceedings aren’t pending, and this wasn’t repealed with the new amendment. But it’s ambiguous and we kind of need clarity now, because we are advising journalists on stories they want to do -(speaking to victims with their consent, obviously) and it’s a bit of a dogs breakfast - and it’s a statutory restriction so strict liability, there’s no wriggle room.

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kadoodle
25 minutes ago, Etta said:

I heard today (on ABC radio - possibly on the news) it is to protect the identity of other victims of the same perp. And for this reason, it makes sense in some cases. Especially if the perp is a family member.

That’s what I just heard on 774.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chicken_bits


The project reported on it. I hope you can view the link.

APparently there was a mistake in the wording they used AND instead of OR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Murderino

Nina Funnell thinks it is bigger than a misplaced word - although she doesn't think it was intentional.

She says fixing the one word would leave some people gagged.

https://australiantruecrimepodcast.com/victorian-rape-survivors-silenced/

She also says it took months to get the government to look at it - they raised it again and again since April (survivors and they're supports) and it was ignored until it hit the media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Murderino
purplekitty

How hard can it be to get to right if you are consulting and listening to stakeholders.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
YodaTheWrinkledOne

But can survivors choose to self-identify, if that's what they want to do? Or is it now blanket rule in Victoria that no victim/survivor is allowed to be identified?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nori_roll
8 hours ago, Murderino said:

I was just coming in to post this podcast @Murderino we have very similar tastes in podcasts! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...