On Monday I ran here a guest blog post by Caroline S. Taylor, Foundation Chair in Social Justice and Head of the Social Justice Research Centre at Edith Cowan University, on the case of the 12-year-old Tasmanian girl forced into prostitution by her mother and her mother’s boyfriend, while in the care of community protection workers. The girl was used by at least 120 men over two months.
A
BC’s PM program covered the issue last night. A review of Tasmania’s child sex laws will be carried out by a group of independent lawyers. They will examine whether ‘mistaking’ the age of a girl is a reasonable excuse. However unfortunately it appears the review won’t be retropective, if it finds this is not a reasonable excuse. It is at this point the reporter, Felicity Ogilvie asks: “What about the human rights of this girl? Is it right that those men who had sex with her won’t be charged because of the way the Tasmanian Criminal Code is at the moment?” Great question. Listen here:
[vimeo]http://vimeo.com/15784760[/vimeo]
Here’s the transcript:
MARK COLVIN: There’s been heated debate in the Tasmanian Parliament about the case of the 12-year-old ward of the state who was sold for sex.
The Opposition is calling for a Royal Commission-style inquiry. The Government is rejecting that call but it will review the state’s child sex laws.
An independent group of lawyers will determine whether Tasmania’s laws about consent and mistaking the age of children should be changed.
The review has been sparked by the fact that the men who had sex with the girl will not be charged. But the lawyer who’s heading the review says even if the laws were to change those men would not be prosecuted.
And a warning – Felicity Ogilvie’s report from Hobart contains details which you may find disturbing.
FELICITY OGILVIE: The Opposition leader Will Hodgman started Question Time by calling for a commission of inquiry into child protection services in Tasmania.
Mr Hodgman also asked why the Children’s Minister still has a job when she’d admitted key agencies failed a 12-year-old girl who was sold for sex.
WILL HODGMAN: If you won’t sack a minister who has admitted that your Government’s system has failed, allowing a 12-year-old girl in state care to be repeatedly prostituted, at what point will you and your ministers accept responsibility for the failures of your Government? Read more.
14 Responses
do not live in Australia but the previous UK government passed legislation making it a criminal offence for Johns to purchase or attempt to purchase any woman involved in prostitution who is being controlled by a pimp. This legislation was drafted in such a way that any John charged with this offence could not claim ignorance. Instead the onus was on him proving he was not attempting/or did purchase a prostituted woman who was being controlled by a pimp. This means he can only claim he did not attempt to make the purchase – not that he was ignorant of the prostituted woman’s/girl’s circumstances.
If it can be applied within the UK legal system then it most certainly can be applied in Tasmania wherein any John who deliberately attempts to purchase/or purchases a girl in order to use her as a disposable toilet, cannot claim ignorance of her age. Claiming ignorance is a common strategy used by male rapists when they are charged with this offence and sadly all too commonly juries accept these lies, because of course all females look the same to men do they not? The myth created by men for men that all females are to blame because they are the ones ‘seducing poor innocent men’ continues to be widely accepted.
Furthermore those 120 male rapists were not purchasing ‘sex’ they were buying a girl in order to subject her to multiple sexual violence just so they could demonstrate their male domination over a female.
The reason why these 120 male rapists have not been charged is obvious – men apparently have the inalienable right of sexual access to any woman or girl 24/7 and those powerful males in suits are ensuring this pseudo male right must not be curbed or challenged. It is irrelevant that one John claimed he was ‘horrified’ to learn he had raped a 12 year old girl when this John no doubt routinely purchases older women for the same purpose – namely committing sexual violence against women and girls.
But male pseudo sex right to women and girls is why the male-dominated media and the male-dominated legal system are working hand-in-glove to prevent the focus being rightly placed on the criminal accountability of the 120+ adult males.
This may be beside the point: but I refuse to believe that all those men didn’t realise when they saw the girl that she wasn’t 18. There’s a marked difference between 12 year old girls and 18 year old girls (no matter how tom-boyish the 18 year old or vulptuous the 12 year old).
I guess I should point out that firstly, I can’t believe that such as thing as paying for sex actually exists and secondly, that people can and do have sex with children.
We live in such a perverted and twisted world. Sometimes it’s hard to see the good points.
Jennifer Drew writes: “The reason why these 120 male rapists have not been charged is obvious – men apparently have the inalienable right of sexual access to any woman or girl 24/7 and those powerful males in suits are ensuring this pseudo male right must not be curbed or challenged.”
There are several reasons why these men have not been charged, one of which is that child involved has refused to identify and give evidence against the men who abused her.
The DPP cannot build a case against them under these circumstances.
There is also the question of whether or not she would be able to identify them, if she agreed to try in the first place, given their number, and the intense trauma she endured.
While we all feel huge distress and outrage about this awful case, we can’t ignore the dreadful cost to the child of having to give evidence in what could be up to eight separate trials, most likely without any satisfactory outcome, and we have to respect and support her decision not to subject herself to this ordeal.
It isn’t the child’s job to help bring her abusers to justice if she is too afraid, exhausted, and traumatised to do it. We urgently need law reforms that mean no child has to be subjected to further traumatisation by enduring the legal processes currently required to bring child sex offenders to justice.
I think you mean ‘retrospective’ where you have written ‘respective’ above. Personally, I find retrospective laws to be scary. While it’s true that ignorance of the law shouldn’t be an excuse, I think it is very damaging for society if something can be made illegal in hindsight.
I have to disagree with the general thrust that the DPP should bring charges to these men. I don’t think the public (or the girl in question) are served by the Crown brining a case against these people that it has no chance of winning. A failed case would also likely see the men compensated by the Crown for court costs. Now that *would* be an outrage. It should be noted that where the DPP did have enough evidence to be reasonably sure of a conviction, it is laying charges (Terry Martin).
The real question is what exactly the failures were that allowed this situation to develop in the first place. The minister responsible should probably resign, and the department should certainly be reviewed.
Perhaps the paper should be required to verify the ability to consent for anyone who wishes to advertise for sexual services. I’m not sure how you realistically apply that to only advertisements though, so maybe there isn’t much point. Perhaps make all legal sex workers be on a registrar with the government (like an ABN). Then anyone visiting a non-listed sex worker could be guilty of an offence. This would also make the government responsible for verifying ability to consent.
I’m not familiar with Tasmania’s prostitution laws, but assuming they don’t already exist, I’d certainly be in favour of anti-pimp laws. They should be drafted in such a way that dependent children and employees (receptionists, bouncers, etc) wouldn’t be classified as pimps though.
In order to “prosecute these men to the full extent of the law”, as has been called for by various people, 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.
Dr Wilson,’the child’ you repeatedly refer to is a primary school aged girl from an incredibly disadvantaged background who, as we all recognize, has been forced into prostitution while a ward of the state in Tasmania. Your heated defense of the DPP rests on an misreading of Professor Taylor’s position. It seems to me that you are insinuating the Professor Taylor is advocating that this little girl be traumatized by testifying against the men who sexually exploited her. You might like to read familiarize yourself with an influential book called Court Licensed Abuse…
I find it offensive that you refer to Professor Taylor as ‘Ms’ while announcing yourself as ‘Dr’. I find it offensive that you insinuate that only someone of unsound mind would disagree with your position. Are you attempting to pathologize women who disagree with you? Your attempt to appear as a rational, reasonable and compassionate advocate for a girl you repeatedly refer to as ‘the child’ is undermined by your disrespectful attitude.
Jennifer Wilson recommends that the interests of girl survivors of sexual violence are best met by ‘adults’ refusing to take action against perpetrators. According to this logic, adults like Professor Caroline Taylor who call upon the state to properly prosecute sex offenders are acting against the interests of survivors. If we follow Wilson’s advice, the girl in the Tasmanian case will live the rest of her life knowing that men who sexually used her suffered no consequence as a result of their crimes. There are thousands of women in Australian society today living with this kind of knowledge. Most women who are victims of men’s sexual violence are never offered the opportunity to report their abuse to police, let alone the support to take offenders to court. Professor Taylor has met many of these women as part of her academic work, and I currently assist her on a research project called Policing Just Outcomes that investigates, among other things, how women feel about reporting sex crime to police. Most of the women we interviewed in this research had not reported their victimisation to police, and some had not told anyone about it before. Many expressed regret about not being able to approach police and be officially recognised as a victim of crime, and spoke with horror at the knowledge that their abusers went on to offend against other women and girls, including their own sisters. Other women wished that family members, local GPs, counsellors, or friends would help them report offenders from childhood. In the Tasmanian case, people like Jennifer Wilson condemn a girl to live the rest of her life in the knowledge that nobody took action against men who committed crimes against her as a child. The alternative path that is carefully researched and advocated by Professor Taylor is one where families, communities, social services, police, the courts rally around women and girls who are victims of men’s sex crimes to support them in holding perpetrators to account. While these victims might never live free of the consequences of the crimes committed against them, at least they might be sustained in adulthood by the thought that sexual abuse is not their private pain to bear, and that people in authority took action against the men who enjoyed their pain in childhood so much.
I dont know what sickens me more – a society that provides the ‘opportunity’ for this to happen, or a society that has become desensitised to the ‘possibility’ of this happening. When did the value of humanity and human dignity cease to be a priority.
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
According to Dr Jennifer Wilson:
“There are several reasons why these men have not been charged, one of which is that child involved has refused to identify and give evidence against the men who abused her.
The DPP cannot build a case against them under these circumstances.”
I can’t think of a better arguement for law reform.
I understand that the girl in question may not want to relive her terror in a court room. So we need to find a way for her to testify that doesn’t victimise her further. Or we need to find a way to prosecute the purchasers of prostitution that doesn’t rely solely on the testimony of the prostituted. There were at least two adults involved in pimping this girl, people who have been charged. Why is their testimony not useful?
I understand that the DPP may not want to proceed in trials which it feels it cannot win – but why is it so hard? What are our laws doing to make it so hard to prosecute the guilty? We know that there are 120 men involved. We have a number, which means we have names. Surely there are at least some of these men we can make a case against for something???
I also understand that our system rests on the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty and that it is very important, particularly in sex cases, to protect the rights of men who may be innocent from having their reputations destroyed. But men don’t just get up one day and decide, out of the blue, that this is the day they will pay to rape a 12 year old (let’s not buy into the nonsense that they believed she was willing). These men will almost certainly all be repeat offenders. Where is the will to pursue them and find something they can be charged with and convicted of?
This is an appallling situation. This girl has been violated in every way possible. If it is truly not possible to prosecute her violaters then the law must be changed and immediately. Of course, to do that, we will have to change the notion that we seem to cling to, in this society, against all the evidence, that the victims of abuse somehow deserved it and that the perpetrators are not really to blame and that it is too hard to hold them to account for their actions.
It is not enough to say that the girl doesn’t want to testify, or that she is too traumatised to identify these men. Someone booked those men in for their turn at abusing a child. Someone took their payment and their names and someone saw them. There must be a way to make them pay for their actions and for our society to say that this is not acceptable and that we will punish the perpetrators – ALL of the perpetrators. Else how will that child know that anyone cares what happened to her? How will we prevent it from happening again?
The DPP is subject to the requirements of the system, as are the rest of us. Under those requirements, the decision he made not to prosecute in this specific case is both sensible and compassionate.
The child in question knows that her mother and Gary Devine have been tried and punished with custodial sentences. She also knows that there is another case in which the DPP considers there is enough evidence to proceed, and is indeed proceeding.
Given the options available to her under the system, which necessitate her identifying and giving evidence against seven or eight alleged offenders, in seven or eight separate trials, she has decided that she does not want to do this, and she has refused to engage with any further legal processes. This is her right. Even though she is young, she has this right and adults ought to be listening to her.
Clearly, the system as it stands is inadequate to deal with circumstances such as these. However, the answer is not to continue to demand prosecution in this specific case, but instead to address the need for and possibilities of change, in to avoid this happening again.
In the meantime, difficult as it is, we have to accept that there can be no prosecution in this specific case and accept the girl’s decision not to subject herself to any further torment.
I have acknowledged Caroline Taylor’s experience in a previous post in which I remarked that I am astonished, given this experience, that she continues to call for prosecutions in this case. She must be aware of the devastating repercussions of engaging in eight separate trials, revisiting the traumas over and over again over a number of years, with very little likelihood of any justice at the end of it all, would have on this young victim.
I am also astonished that given her experience, she does not acknowledge the importance of hearing what the victim has chosen, and respecting and supporting that choice. This is one of the things that assists a victim who has been so thoroughly disempowered to begin her healing : someone respecting her choices and abiding by them. Given her experience, I am sure Taylor knows this.
I am not about to enter into a pissing contest with Taylor about our professional expertise. I note that the Professor has once again felt the necessity to inform me of her background- I think she has done this one way or another now at least four times in the last three days.
I have little interest in any of this, my interest is specifically in this case, and in arguing for the girl’s wishes to be acknowledged and respected in the matter of prosecutions of her abusers.
As I’m about to leave for the USA where I have professional commitments for the next few weeks, I won’t be making any further commentary on this site. However, I do hope that something I’ve said will encourage someone to put the girl’s decision before ideological considerations, and give her the respect and acknowledgment she so desperately deserves.
Ms Bray
I was unaware that “Ms” is an offensive form of address.
I remarked that anyone of sound mind would understand the DPP’s memo. Agreeing or disagreeing with me personally has nothing to do with anyone’s soundness of mind, or lack of it and I did not suggest that was the case.
The child is legally just that. Girl is also fine – I consider the terms interchangeable in this instance. I am not required to be aware of your personal or political difficulties with the word “child.”
I have thus far found very little to respect in Caroline Taylor’s position.
The child has not requested anybody to coach and support her through eight trials. She has said that she does not want to do this in the first place, and that she will not do it.
As she has already experienced the prosecutions of her mother, and Devine, she is a great deal better informed than many of us about what it is to endure these proceedings.
Therefore she is making an informed decision and her decision is No.
So which part of the girl’s “No” do you people not understand?
I’ve read all these posts really carefully.
I’m fifteen and I think you should all listen to what the girl says she wants to do.
I can’t even imagine how awful it must be go through what she’s gone through and see her mother in prison. And if she’s gone through trials already then she knows what its like and can decide if she wants to do it again. If she says she doesn’t you don’t have the right to try and say she should.
i wouldn’t want to go through one trial like that and she would have to go through eight more. Why does anybody think tht should happen?
All you people need to listen to us younger people we are not stupid.
Susan, I agree, no-one should try to make the girl in this case do anything she doesn’t want to do. She has already had more of people making her do things she didn’t want to do than anyone should have in a lifetime. And going through sex-related cases in court is a particularly hideous experience, even for grown women. I, for one, am not saying that she should be put through that and I support wholeheartedly her right and her decision not to do it. I can’t speak for any other people, but I am pretty sure that no-one else wants her to go through that either.
But this case shows that it is too easy for men to get away with this kind of abuse. I’m not sure what it is that we need to change about the law, or the way it is applied in these cases, but we must be able to do better than this. This isn’t just about this case. The history of the law as it relates to prostitution in this country has too many examples of everyone being prosecuted but the men who benefitted from the law-breaking. This is outrageous in any case – it is even more so in this case, when the abused person is a child.
I accept that, in this case, legally and for the sake of the girl concerned, we may not be able to do anything about this set of men and this outrage. But I don’t want to have to accept this ever again. I am not demanding that this girl be further abused by the system that should support her, but that the system be changed so that she and all other vulnerable people can be properly protected by it and that abusers can be punished by it. I’m sure that many of the the police and the prosecutors involved are just as angry as we are – but they can’t be effective where the law lets them down.
As I said, I’m not sure exactly how we can change this – the law is not a simple thing. But we have to demand that something be done. And that is what I am here to do. Maybe some of you younger people can come up with some ideas!