By ANDRE BAGOO Monday, March 22 2010

click on pic to zoom in

Attorney General John Jeremie...

LEGISLATION which could make it easier for the State to prosecute persons accused of rape was read in Parliament on Friday night by Attorney General John Jeremie who argued that the law would protect “women and infants”.

Piloting an amendment to the Evidence Act which would make it easier for witnesses to come forward in support of victims of rape, Jeremie argued that the new legislation was aimed at protecting women and children, but he omitted men.

The Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill 2010 seeks to revive what is referred to as the doctrine of recent complaint.

The doctrine is an exception to the rule that hearsay evidence from persons who do not witness a crime is to be admissible. It allows friends, family members or anyone a victim speaks to soon after being assaulted to come forward and tell a court what that victim said in order for the court to weigh the evidence against an accused.

“In the Evidence Amendment Bill we seek to revive the doctrine of recent complaint,” Jeremie explained on Friday. “There are several reasons why a responsible government would seek to revive the doctrine of recent complaint.

“The revival of the doctrine is advantageous to the victim of a sexual assault and we speak both of women and especially of vulnerable young children.”

He noted that because sexual assaults generally do not occur in public places, there are not often witnesses.

“Sexual offences most often occur in private and other than the victim it is unlikely that there would be another person who could give eye witness testimony,” he explained. Noting that the hearsay rule prevents persons who did not directly witness a crime from testifying about it he added, “That fact can severely impede the prosecution of a case. So we are seeking tonight to protect the interest of women and young children.”

Additionally, he noted, “There is difficulty gathering corroborative evidence of a sexual assault. Ultimately it is the victims word against that of the alleged perpetrator.”

Currently, rape cases involving adults, which are conducted in camera because of the sensitivity of the crime involved, frequently boil down to the word of the victim against that of the perpetrator. The use of DNA evidence, lawyers noted, only aids the court in determining whether sex has occurred and does not aid the court with the issue of consent.

Noted criminal prosecutor Israel Khan SC yesterday questioned whether reviving the doctrine will aid prosecutions. He noted the doctrine had originally been abolished in the 1980s because jurors had a tendency to view a person’s failure to complain soon after the crime as a sign of inconsistency.

“Jurors were questioning why victims had failed to report the case,” Khan said. “But even if you bring it back, a recent complaint only establishes consistency of the report. It does not act as evidence that the rape took place.”

However another noted criminal prosecutor, Gilbert Peterson SC, argued that a recent complaint can support the consistency of a victim’s side of the story, and this aids in their case. “It helps the victim with credibility,” he said.

Members of the Opposition on Friday heckled Jeremie because of his repeated indications that the bill is meant to benefit only women and children.

“I don’t know about men being sexually assaulted,” the Attorney General replied to the heckling at one point. He added, “Madam Deputy Speaker, I’ve been asked what about men, but I chose my words very carefully. I said women and infants, okay?”

His comments came three days after the Senate debate on prison reform legislation in which senators lamented the extent of the sexual abuse of males behind prison walls.

The Attorney General also noted that the bill, “seeks to expand the scope and nature of the coverage of the use of audio visual technology for which we legislated in late November”.