A 12-year-old Tasmanian girl is forced into prostitution by her mother and her mother’s boyfriend, while in the care of community protection workers. They advertise her as “Angela, 18”. She is allegedly used by at least 120 men in an ordeal that last two months and leaves her with a sexually transmitted illness. The mother and boyfriend are jailed. What happens to the men? Nothing.
Today, an important guest post by Professor S. Caroline Taylor, Foundation Chair in Social Justice and Head of the Social Justice Research Centre at Edith Cowan University. Professor Taylor is also the Founder and Chair of Children of Phoenix Organisation, a charity that provides scholarships and mentoring support to children, adolescents and adults affected by childhood sexual abuse.
Last week, the Tasmanian Director of Public Prosecution, Mr Tim Ellis, released an eight page Memorandum of Advice to the Tasmania police which instructed that at least 120 men who had paid to ‘have sex with’ a 12-year-old ward of the state will not be charged with breaking the law.
On October 1, on Stateline Tasmania, Mr Ellis dismissed broad community and expert concern about the case as nothing more than a symptom of “wicked” media sensationalism. He added the gratuitous comment that the law rests with a “reasonable jury, not a lynch mob”.
In effect Mr Ellis framed the numerous and profound media and expert critiques of the social justice issues that this case clearly raises as nothing more than an hysterical media driven moral panic about child sexual abuse.
It’s a puerile argument, as stupid as it is offensive to public sensibilities. This tactic reduces the complex reasons behind the critique of his decision with an underhanded accusation that such critiques are not “reasonable”. This is echoed in the Attorney-General Lara Giddings comment: “I understand their anger”. Reducing the profound ethical critiques of this case to a single reactionary emotion – anger – infantilises public concern in order to dismiss such concerns.
Our legal system is premised on the notion that police lay charges where there is evidence that a crime has been committed according to the rules of the law. Yet in this case the DPP has determined that not one, not two, not three, not four, but a series of men charged with paying to sexually abuse a child all really believed that a 12-year-old ward of the state was an adult. To be clear, the Director of Public Prosecution has used his discretion to void all charges on the grounds that he found every one of their arguments “convincing”. I wonder how many “arguments” they actually had? Or did they amount to the one generic excuse: they could not tell the difference between a primary school age child and a female aged 18.
A Tasmanian MP, Terry Martin, was, however, charged earlier in relation to the 12-year-old. He allegedly filmed the child giving him oral sex. Of course he should be pursued. But why him and not the other 120 men?
While the DPP may exercise discretion not to proceed with a case they do not believe is in the public interest or where the evidence is wholly insufficient, a case as serious as this should not have been remedied with his private deliberations. It appears the DPP determined himself as both judge and jury. In a case as serious as this, involving a child – one of society’s most vulnerable members – prostituted to numerous adult men, we are told that the DPP alone determined the authenticity of the excuses of a group of men who would normally be charged with the sexual abuse of a child. (And their computers probably searched for child pornography). It is important to recognise that in a case involving the relentless sexual, emotional, and psychological abuse of a child, Mr Ellis has accepted the various excuses of the men involved and effectively protected these men from further scrutiny.
The DPP has the right to use discretion to veto cases for prosecution. But I am staggered that charges against a string of men, for the same offences, were dropped on the subjective assessment of one man. This decision, I believe, denied our society the opportunity to determine the authenticity of the excuses relied on by the accused men. It could well have been an opportunity for society to determine the setting of our collective moral compass. Questions of law are not matters that should be adjudicated and determined singularly and behind closed doors. What happened to the concept of open, transparent and public justice?
This case is more than questions of law. It is also to do with questions of decency, of morality, and the ethical treatment of vulnerable girls. The sexual abuse of children is all too rampant in our society. Adults prostituting a child – their own child in this case – is not rare, I am sad to say.
Justice was not served, either in practice, or in principle. The excuses relied on by a group of men charged with a crime against a child should have been held up to scrutiny in a courtroom. Not the elite office of the DPP.
So if we follow this unusual logic, can we expect that the DPP would instruct the Tasmanian police not to charge numerous traffic offenders if those offenders claimed they “truly thought it was 100 km and not 60km”? And would they not truly prosecute a gang of burglars who “convincingly” persuaded the DPP that they either thought the items they stole were actually there for the taking, or that the men had a forgivable inability to comprehend the concept of ownership? Their claims to a criminal offence would be tested within the courtroom, not pardoned by one man’s subjective assessment.
This child was denied justice and a voice. She was also denied any sense of her humanity, her vulnerability, her suffering. Society was denied the opportunity to demonstrate that we have evolved our social and moral landscape and will not tolerate the sexual abuse, misuse and trafficking of children. The outcry from the public and members of the judiciary and legal field are, I think, testament to this claim – that we are capable of recognising and addressing revolting crimes against children.
The failure of the DPP to present the case at court represents, to my mind, an abject failure to both challenge the law to listen to the plight of children, and to challenge those who sexually prey upon them.
Even with the gaps about the prosecution having to prove the men knew the girl was underage, as a society we deserve a courageous lawyer, a brave leader to say, regardless of these limitations and challenges, we will take the case forward and prosecute with all our might.
Legal, societal and moral reform has always been preceded by challenges for change and development. The failure to bring the charges to light and to call the men to account for the crime they were charged with, and have it determined in a legal forum demonstrates a deeply imbedded flaw in the moral character of Tasmanian law.
The DPP’s remarkable counter claim that the area of law that should be reformed lies in the regulation of prostitution misses the entire basis of the argument raised by myself and others. It is a crime to work as a prostitute if one is under the legal age of consent. So even if prostitution were more tightly regulated it would never be legal for a 12-year-old to be prostituted to men.
Also, the “pimps” in this case were not seeking to set up a shingle and an office. Tighter regulation of prostitution would not have led to detection of the crime. It’s a stupid focus and takes us nowhere other than to shift focus from the facts of the case – the sexual abuse, exploitation and prostituting of a child and the abject failure of the law to seek any semblance of justice for the child or society for that matter.
It’s easy to attack and criticise my comments on the Stateline show (September 30) as DPP Ellis did. For my part, I do not retract my comments. The fact I was not privy to the “evidence” as he suggests, does not in my view negate my comments. Indeed, it is odd for Mr Ellis to suggest that if we (myself, presumably, and the public) had seen the evidence we would agree with him – the collective ‘we’ were all denied the opportunity to understand the logic behind Mr Ellis’ singular opinion because the evidence was never tested in a legal forum and his reasoning not open to scrutiny. My critique was not about the vocabulary of excuses – it was about the failure to test these excuses within a legal forum designed to hear and determine criminal charges.
I am concerned about the capacity of one man’s support for the chorus of claims by a large group of accused men that by right should have been delivered in a legal forum viva voce and adjudicated on by the court. I am concerned that the veracity of their claims about being unable to tell the difference between a primary school age child and a female over 18 has not been tested in a court of law.
This is about simply demanding that the line up of men who subjected a little girl to relentless penetrations and sexual violations have claims that they are unable to distinguish between a primary school age child and someone older, in a legal forum.
By not taking the matter to court, we abrogated a little girl’s most basic human right to at least have the law step in on some level to protect her and thousands like her. As a society we should not stand by silently and allow our public office of prosecution to indulge in secretive and un-democratic decision-making. To do so denies us our capacity as a democracy, and as a people, to reform both justice and our moral compass about the most vulnerable members of our society.
35 Responses
This is a fantastic post. I particularly enjoyed your critique of the tactics used to first infantilize and then dismiss public and media critiques.
The story is just sickening and the men involved should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Anyway, since when is ignorance a defense? EVEN IF they did believe the girl was 18 (as unlikely as this may be) they have still committed statutory rape, regardless. Not realising you are committing a crime, does not cancel the fact that you ARE committing a crime.
When it comes to issues of sex trafficking, child rape, “I didn’t know” should never be an excuse.
We need a system that locks these men up, not protects them.
I don’t know what’s more disgraceful, that these 120 men are not being held accountable for their actions on the basis of such a pathetic excuse, or that we live in a society where their right to buy sex seems to be considered so inalienable that little girls like this one inevitably become collateral damage. The Tasmanian DPP has totally failed this poor child and all of us who rely on it to seek, let alone uphold, justice.
This strikes me as bizarre (as well as infuriating and wrong and everything else said already). Surely they could have found SOMETHING to charge them with? Even if they did think she was 18, surely there was something illegal about a transaction in which a child was pimped by its parent? Even if she were 18, are we so blase about prostitution in Australia that that is legal?
As for the idea that even most of them could have believed that she was 18, that is so blantantly nonsense that I have difficulty believing that a public prosecutor could say it in public. A willing 18-year old, (leave aside the issue of whether any 18 year old prostitutes really feel they have a choice) even an underdeveloped one, does not look or behave like an abused 12 year old. But of course, that is probably what at least some of these bastards paid for. Her fear and revulsion probably turned them on. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with pornography knows that anything advertised as ”18″ is a euphamism for underage. ‘Just legal’ or ‘barely legal’ websites and magazines are rife in this noxious business. So any man in the market for a prostitute advertised as ’18’ is, by definition, in the market for a child. Is Mr Ellis really so naive as to believe otherwise? Or is there someone in that 120 who it isn’t in the interest of the DPP to prosecute? Is that what this farce is really about? How are we to know, when the best he can do is to say that those of us who feel that it is pointless to have laws against prostitution and child abuse and then only prosecute the providers of the services and not the users are ‘a lynch mob’. I resent that slur, Mr Ellis. I am not a mob, nor part of one. I think they should have a fair hearing – in a court room, in a criminal trial, which is the appropriate place to evaluate the merits of the case of people who have so blatantly BROKEN THE LAW.
One can’t help wondering if this might have been different if the child in question had been the kidnapped daughter of someone in high office, or a popular sporting figure. Would the public outcry then have been ‘reasonable’ Mr Ellis? Would it have been different if it had been a little boy? Maybe I’m being unfair. But I can only go on what you are allowing us to see. And from what I see, protecting the rights of men who like to pay for sex with little girls means more to you than the welfare of our children.
I agree Imelda. If this girl came from a family that had access to enough money to purchase the expertise of an barrister of consequence (and not, which might be the case, a legal aid lawyer) then the situation would probably be different. But she obviously comes from a very poor disadvantaged background. One law for the rich, another for the poor. The violation of a poor girl doesn’t seem to matter very much to the Tasmanian government. It is almost as though she has been treated like human waste. I don’t think Mr Ellis is naive, I think he is an opportunist. But question the logic behind this or the ‘ethics’ and one is accused of being a member of a ‘lynch mob’. That far more children have been killed by pedophiles than pedophiles have been killed by ‘lynch mobs’ is a fact which is strategically ignored. Instead one is stigmatized as a blood thirsty reactionary for demanding that children of all classes have their basic human rights protected.
Two comments. One is that there was a study recently that showed that a jury was more likely to judge a person more harshly if they defrauded one person rather than many. http://bit.ly/begde6. I wonder if the same sort of psychology (in reverse) is going on here in the judges mind. If there was one man that was molesting her he would have come down on him very harshly (this was done with the mother and boyfriend) but is more difficult for him to identify with the abuse when it is 120 men. This of course in no way justifies his position and I believe that all 120 men should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Which leads me to my second comment. Sweden now prosecute the ‘john’ rather than the prostitute. I think this sort of law truly tackles the issue of violence against women and does not allow the ‘john’ to simply be a faceless punter. Is it time we considered this type of law in Australia?
I don’t know about everyone else, but I’m pretty keen to kick up a stink about this. Can anyone give me any advice about who I write my complaint to?
This is terrible! Where is the protection of children in this? Why are they being protected over and above the child and her needs? Where is the justice in our legal system?
We have normalised public sexualised behaviour (through advertising, the media, music etc) and violence associated with sexuality (also through advertising, music video clips and pornogrpahy). This is the outcome. It’s accepted that it’s okay for men to pay for sex with a child. Or at least, it’s not “bad enough” or not an efficient use of our judiciary system’s time to bring it to trial. The DPP should be sued forgross negligence, and for his failing to commence proceedings against any of these men, he should be charged with aiding and abetting criminal behaviour.
Emily: email Melinda 🙂
This is deeply disturbing for me, I cannot imagine the profound effect that the justice system just metered out on the girl by their lack of concern and care for a vulnerable young person. I do not know how she would live with the knowledge that the 120 are free with no justice and able to do that again to some other vulnerable soul.
I would like to see the 120 men’s faces in the press at the very least. A public humiliation if the Justice system is not going to do anything.
Time and again we see the justice system allow acts against people to be far less important than stealing money.
If these 120 men (and I use the term with disgust as I consider myself to be a man and would never indulge in this horrid type of behaviour) had set up a scam and stolen money they would be pursued to the ends of the earth, eg. Mr. Skase.
The other issue here is the proof that the prosecutors and judges are not living in the same world as the rest of us. Over and over again you see examples of these pompous morons dishing out sentenances, even when the criminal is convicted, that have no reflection on the crime and societies expectations of punishment.
There is no deterent anymore!!
And horrible as it is to suggest but are there alteria motives involved with this DPP as suggested by other comments? It does make you wonder!!!
We can’t allow this to go unpassed. What can we do? How CAN we allow the “law” to cover for these pedophiles? NOBODY is sorry about what happened to this girl unless they’re willing to go all the way with investigation and prosecution. I’m willing to help with anything that will bring justice here – not just for this girl, but for all children. I can understand the girl should not be called upon to testify against these people unless handled very carefully, but the law should be sensitive to this and adjust to take account, no-one can tell me it can’t, I study law and work in that area, and if there are records or recollections of the adults involved in selling the girl, this should be used. There should not be a blanket MOU not to prosecute. That is coming nowhere near justice. We should get together to look into the ins and outs of it, so we’re well advised, and mount a campaign.
The emphasis in the application of law is mistaken; it isn’t up to the state to prove that the 120 men ‘thought’ or ‘knew’ the girl was under 18. The girl IS under 18, therefore the onus is on the perpetrators of child rape to convince judge/jury that it was believable that she could seem 18 and if they can establish that it may serve as a mitigating factor in sentencing, not as an excuse for acquittal.
The idea is absurd that the men cannot be identified without the testimony of the child victim, or that nothing can be proven. There must be CC footage showing occasions where the pimp met with prospective clients; credit card numbers; motel or other staff who can identify people who came and went. The two that are already in gaol could be persuaded – by swapping privileges for information about people with whom they dealt, for example – to identify and detail various men and their involvement.
If the victim had been two years of age, or of substantial sub-optimal IQ, or very injured or killed in the commission of this mass perpetration, she would not be capable of giving testimony and alternative means of identifying the men and of building evidence against them would be pursued. Further injury to the girl by requiring her to testify is not necessary and shouldn’t be required. Failure to deliver her (and the wider community) any justice is disgraceful and completely unacceptable. Tasmania isn’t that big a place – that these people managed to advertise and get over 100 males prepared to foist themselves on this child is sickening – but with Tasmania being small, it shouldn’t be too hard to find and prosecute a fair number of the people involved.
What more can I say that has already been commented. But I MUST say something if only to make me feel a little better in such an un-excusable act anyone can do to anyone else.
No need to mention anything about the parents, pimps, in this case except to say I hope they had an extremely harsh penalty and will not be out for many, many years to follow. And very slow years!
I wonder why it is that prostitution seems to be allowed in Tasmania, to my knowledge Prostitution was against the law. 120 men broke that law and are set free? I wonder if there were many of them of high profile that could not ‘risk’ being known.
We all need to stand for the rights of this child, and unfortunately many others, as they don’t know any better, they don’t know any other life. They feel isolated and alone. What did they do that was so wrong is the constant question in their minds. In what should be so innocent and clean this little one is now poisoned beyond belief and has a very long journey ahead of her to heal.
I wonder too about the department who was supposedly caring for her whilst this was happening? They need to be investigated even more.
The whole situation has bought out far too many flaws in our ability to really look after our young ones.
There is a saying, “in the eyes of the law there are no excuses”. However, that seems to be the ONLY thing that has ‘saved’ these men. Have them charged, even if they thought she was 18 (cough cough they are not that dumb) what man in his right mind would want to have sex with a young person who still has a full life ahead of them. Now that life has been ruined.
I don’t know, I feel so angered by not only the parents and the men, but also the legal system and the so called, child protection agency, for allowing this to have happened. And that this is not the only story.
This is all so very wrong.
We need legals out there who are willing to stand up and protect the young, not their peers.
God be with the young children who are still being abused and help us help you.
Ms Funnell: In order to “prosecute these men to the full extent of the law” the child is required to identify them, and give evidence against them. The child has refused to do this.
Caroline Taylor omits this information from her article, as well as the fact that the men who have admitted to sexual activity with the girl would have to be tried separately, meaning the child would have to deal with not one, but seven or eight separate trials.
If you take the trouble to read the DPP’s memorandum, you will also find several other very good reasons why prosecution of these men is not being pursued.
It is, unfortunately, impossible to prosecute these men without causing untold trauma to the child. The child has decided not to undergo this ordeal. This may well be the first time in her life she has been able to say no and have anybody take any notice of her wishes. She deserves our respect and support in her decision.
I cannot see what is to be gained by continuing to urge prosecution of these men, instead, argue for law reform.
I am also appalled that someone with the reputation of Ms Taylor would write as she has, with the deliberate accusation that the DPP has “effectively protected these men from further scrutiny”, without any reference whatsoever to the memorandum that explains in detail why he reached the decision he did.
If you read this memorandum, and you are of sound mind, it will quickly become apparent that given the circumstances, the DPP acted with compassion towards the child’s situation,and common sense.
Excellent analysis Caroline.
I agree with Imelda’s comment; advertising for 18 year olds is code, widely understood, for child or childlike experiences.
It should be possible for the testimony the girl has already given to be used, she should not have to go through anything else. The men who used her should be held accountable.
Jennifer Walker holds up ‘fear’ as the yardstick everyone should use to decide whether we should seek legal redress for the girl, and for the thousands of others like her who are raped, assaulted, and trafficked in this society.
I am personally pilloried as someone who has no concept of this.
My work and its influence around law reform and the development of benchmark competencies for criminal justice professionals is premised on evidence based research, including significant research with survivors of child and adult sexual abuse.
I have a deep and abiding understanding of the fears and concerns of children and have published material around this that has informed many a judge, juror and other people in the legal arena.
I have by invitation provided consultation to police around Australia and the UK in relation to child abuse cases as well as issues relating to the reluctance and fear expressed by child and adult survivors with regard to reporting and any pending legal process.
Offenders rely on the ‘fear’ of children to avoid detection and prosecution. A child who is fearful needs support and care and ‘time’ to think about legal process. This should never be used as an excuse to not think about reform or how legal redress may still be achieved.
I am more than happy to be judged by the children and adults I have directly and indirectly assisted through my professional and private work;by the professionals I have provided training to with regard to the ethhics, sensitivity and care of child and adult victim/survivors and their engagement with the legal system and by the professional uptake of my work both here in Australia and overseas. For me that is where the court of opinion counts.
Professor Caroline Taylor
9B5189
I think Professor Taylor means “Jennifer Wilson” in her post.
I reiterate: the child has refused to identify the men and to give evidence.
If she had agreed to do this she would have had to face not one, but eight separate trials during which she would have had to re visit her trauma over and over again. The trials would have run over a period of years and years.
The likelihood of any of these men being brought to justice is miniscule, and the child would be even further traumatised by the lack of convictions. As Taylor must know, given her experience in these matters.
Given her experience, she must also know that the evidence against the men is far too vulnerable to reasonable doubt.
I wonder if Professor Taylor would want this tortuous experience for her daughter, if she has one, or indeed, for herself. Grown women refuse to pursue their attackers through the courts even once, let alone eight separate times, so why should Taylor demand that this child agree to this?
It is beyond my understanding that Taylor can even contemplate subjecting this child to such ordeals.
It is nothing to do with my fear, or society’s fear. It is to do with a child saying that she does not want to do this, and she will not testify.
It is to do with child advocates, and feminists, of all people, respecting and supporting this already horribly abused girl’s choice not to do this. Or does her choice, and her voice, not matter to Taylor? Does “society” matter more than this one child’s voice?
Yes, it is terribly wrong that the child should have to be put through such ordeals in order for these men to be brought to justice. But it is the reality. So, instead of campaigning to have this child used as society’s guinea pig, why not leave her alone, and find some way of changing the system so children do not have to face these choices in the future?
Finally, Taylor seems to feel I have questioned her expertise and experience. I really don’t care about either of these things – what I have questioned is her attitude to this specific child and this specific case. I really wish she could manage to focus on those issues, instead of on her need to justify herself. It isn’t about her.It isn’t about her expertise and experience. It isn’t about Professor Caroline Taylor. My comments are about this child, and this situation, and that is all and everything they are about.
Dr Wilson, I have a question for you, since you seem to know something about the law as it pertains to this case. Why is the likelihood of any of these men being brought to justice so miniscule and what can we do about it?
I understand why the DPP is reluctant to bring poor cases to trial and I completely understand the girl’s reluctance to testify (as I said in my comment on the other post). But as I have said in other comments, is there really no other evidence? Are the police and the DPP hamstrung in some way (or several ways) so as to make ALL of these cases unprosecutable? And what do we need to do to change that situation? Because it is intolerable that this girl has been used in this way and the perpetrators should be going unpunished. Her recovery is paramount, but stopping anyone else from going through this is also vitally important and making sure that men like these are punished is surely part of that.
What do we have to do, to ask for, to demand, to change, so that this cannot happen again?
Imelda, the DPP’s reasoning can be found below in a memorandum he released to the Hobart Mercury.
http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/10/02/176611_opinion.html
The mother, and her partner Gary Devine have already been prosecuted and are serving custodial sentences.
There is another prosecution underway which I can’t name for legal reasons. The DPP had enough evidence to proceed with this one. So the DPP has prosecuted three times in this case, when there was the evidence to do it.
You can also go to http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/10/01/3027625.htm where there is a Tasmanian Stateline interview with Tim Ellis in which he explains why he decided( in consultation with colleagues) that it was not productive to prosecute any of these 120 men.
Every defendant must be allowed the consideration of reasonable doubt, and in these cases there was a strong possibility of that defense succeeding. The DPP must consider this when deciding on prosecutions. He does not do this in isolation, he consults experienced people.
For some reason none of these links that explain these things have been posted on this site so that readers can be fully informed of how and why this decision was taken by the DPP, and then make their own minds up.
Readers of this site have been given only one perspective on the decision and that is not good enough for a site that seeks to inform women on these topics.
As I’ve mentioned on the other forum, I’m about to leave for the USA and so haven’t time to say much more. Thank you for asking the questions. I very much appreciate that.
The girl’s appearance and voice should have alerted these men – this is a child. They should all be charged as paedophiles. There is a big difference between a 12 year old and 16 year old let alone an 18 year old. This poor child did not have the CAPACITY to defend herself against any of these predators. These men did this to the 12 year old because they knew they could get away with it! They will do it again and again and again – their actions speak louder than words – they are paedophiles with crocodile tears . Labor Gov again stopping Royal Commissions into our legal system in every state because being in politics is more important than bring justice to victims. If we do not make a stand in this case what is to say that other 12 years old willn’t be kidnapped to satisfy the appetites of men that like little girls.
The girl’s appearance and voice should have alerted these men – this is a child. They should all be charged as paedophiles. There is a big difference between a 12 year old and 16 year old let alone an 18 year old. This poor child did not have the CAPACITY to defend herself against any of these predators. These men did this to the 12 year old because they knew they could get away with it! They will do it again and again and again – their actions speak louder than words – they are paedophiles with crocodile tears . Labor Gov again stopping Royal Commissions into our legal system in every state because being in politics is more important than bring justice to victims. If we do not make a stand in this case what is to say that other 12 years old wouldn’t be kidnapped to satisfy the appetites of men that like little girls.
This is beyond disgraceful, that poor little girl.
The thing that angers me most about it is that surely the onus is on a man who is out there aiming to buy sex to make sure they are not doing anything illegal, just like in every other situation as mentioned above.
Obviously in an ideal world men wouldn’t have such a low opinion of the value of females in the first place, but given they are out there paying for sex with ppl they don’t know, surely it is up to them to protect themselves by demanding proof of age.
I have no idea how they can be excused for ‘not knowing’ – even if she somehow looked like a grown woman unlikely as that is, she has a date of birth that would appear on some sort of document; if she were over 18 she would most likely have a proof of age card – it would take 1min of time to demand to see it.
Clubs are required to ask for proof of age to protect themselves from breaking the law by selling alcohol to minors.
Surely buying sex is slightly more important, potentially so much more damaging, these men should be held accountable for their actions just as they would be if it were any other situation of breaking the law.
28 October 2010
Honourable David Barlett
Premier of Tasmania
GPO Box 123
HOBART TAS 7001
Dear Honourable David Barlett,
RE: 120 men who sexually abused a 12 year old.
This is a request to review the case about charging 120 men who sexually exploited a 12 year old.
When people in power fail to prevent or act on crimes against children, I am compelled to complain about the unethical, dangerous and bad example set by your political party.
If we all turned a blind eye to this case, then other 12 year olds will be exploited and possibly kidnapped to satisfy predator’s appetites who prefer to have sex with children . The men involved in this case knew that they could get away with this crime by using the same convenient excuse “we all though the child was 18”. This case, if ignored, will encourage others to copy ,therefore, strong consideration needs to be given to change the laws so that mistaking someone’s age can no longer be used as a defence.
The child involved did not have the capacity to defend and protect herself from the abuse. Her age made her incompetent/disabled, therefore, all the men involved abused her situation. Girls under 18 years of age do not have the capacity to defend themselves from men that want to buy girls for sex so please introduce legislation to penalise men for buying girls under the age of 18.
The child needs a tutor/case guardian to bring these predators to trial. A case guardian will assist and protect the child from the judicial system. Each state of Australia has legislation for minors under the definition of “disable person” to seek a tutor to facilitate court proceedings in an unfamiliar and stressful situation.
Your government has the power to make laws for the peace and welfare of its citizens especially for children who are incompetent to protect themselves from men that have the means, support and sophistication to protect themselves.
Yours faithfully
AM
CC Director of Public Prosecutions Tim Ellis
Attorney General Lara Giddings
The Leader of the Opposition Tasmania.Will Hodgman MP
It would appear from what is reported that the men have identified themselves (the DPP having accepted their stories), in which case the girl doesn’t have to identify them. So who is being protected here? It is not the children of Tasmania because, after all, these men are free to interfere with any of them provided they believe they are over 18 ( oh, is that years or months?).
This case is such a concern because it will encourage trafficking of Children in Australia. Children will be kidnapped, abused and families will be destroyed. Look at the case for Daniel Marcombe, and Madeline There are reports that this child was trafficked to as many as 200 men and not one of them gave a dam about her. I wouldn’t be surprised that this child was drugged out of her brains, the men knew it and continued to abuse her. Three police officers are included in the 120 so call men – there are not going to be charged or disciplined. Who is the Director of Public Prosecutions protecting? A Judge involved? Who can trust our legal system?
So now for anarchy, as criminals can no longer be held to “Ignorance of the law is no excuse”
To think previously also, dead people who were murdered received justice when their murderers were prosecuted and babies and toddlers who were harmed even had their perpetrators prosecuted even though the baby couldn’t identify them. In those days, there might have even been a solution found , along these lines, for the girl above. But no, Tasmania has progressed ( there was a time when progression meant improvement).
http://suggest.getup.org.au/forums/60819-campaign-ideas/suggestions/1179923-tas-premier-to-review-charging-120-men-for-sexuall
Join in the protest and petition on Get Up Australia. Copy and paste the above link – Tas Premier to review the charges against 120 men for sexually exploiting a 12 year old. Tell all your friends. Don’t let them get away with this. Don’t forget to add a comment and vote.
Surely the mother and her partner could be compelled by the state to give evidence in this matter? They would have direct evidence that she was held out to these 120 men as a minor. No doubt that fact was made abundantly clear when these men agreed to and paid to have sex.
In any event, I would think that most of these defendants would choose to plead guilty in order to avoid the public humiliation of going to court. I find it fascinating that the government has no problem naming names and charging people in other types of circumstances (drugs, medical malpractice, homicide, illegal immigration) that do not necessarily have “air-tight” cases. Sometimes even innocent people can be charged for things they didn’t do and suffer irreparable damage to their names and reputations. Why should a case like this be any different?
In this case, we have quite a bit of evidence that these men had sex with a 12 year old. The only issue is whether the prosecutors can prove that they knew (at the time) she was under age. Surely, this should be possible to prove in at least some of the cases?
If criminal recompense is out of the question, surely there must be some sort of civil remedy? If they can all pony up money to have sex with her, perhaps they could be held responsible for her health, treatments, therapy and post secondary education? This could go along way towards repairing the damage they have innevitably done…
120 men have changed this girls life forever. I am willing to be one (of the hopefully 120 women) who stand up and demand justice be done. The people in this country who hold office, do it on behalf of the people. If the people stand up and demand action, I guarantee you something will be done. The trick is to take action instead of just accepting what has been done.
If the girl does not want to testify, that is fair. It is her choice. However, justice can still be served if we take action.
“Every defendant must be allowed the consideration of reasonable doubt, and in these cases there was a strong possibility of that defense succeeding. The DPP must consider this when deciding on prosecutions. He does not do this in isolation, he consults experienced people.”
The fact that a defense by these alleged perpetrators might have succeeded isn’t a legal argument for not prosecuting – if it was the DPP could make that argument against ever holding any criminal trial again.
The public interest demands that if there is evidence against defendants that they have paid to rape a child, they should be prosecuted. The fact that the investigators are even aware of who these men are, demonstrates that that evidence exists.
http://humantrafficking.change.org/blog/view/what_should_we_call_men_who_buy_sex_with_young_girls
The above link is relevant to this issue.
Pay-per-rapist is what we should call all the 200 men who sexually exploited this 12 year old.
Rent-a-victim Pay-per-rapist.
Rent-a-victim that is all this poor child was to these poor excuses of human beings.