End suppression of identities for alleged sex offenders

LAWS granting automatic anonymity to alleged rapists and child sex predators are unjust, further isolate victims and are out of touch with modern society, advocacy groups say.

Former State MP Bernard Finnigan was one of the most high profile people affected by SA’s secrecy laws during his child pornography trial.

• Secrecy Inc: The business of keeping SA in the dark
• Daniel Wills: It’s our money – it’s our right to know
• Major projects discussed out of sight, out of mind

LAWS granting automatic anonymity to alleged rapists and child sex predators are unjust, further isolate victims and are out of touch with modern society, advocacy groups say.

The Carly Ryan Foundation, Bravehearts and the Survivors and Mates Network have joined The Advertiser’s call to abolish provisions within Section 71A of the Evidence Act (1929).

The groups, who support sex abuse survivors, say the provisions grant special privileges to the sort of alleged criminals who are least deserving of consideration.

They say the law, and its maximum $120,000 fine for breaches, leaves SA lagging behind the global push to empower victims and scrutinise sex predators.

Bravehearts founder Hetty Johnston said only subsection 4 of the law – guaranteeing privacy for alleged sex crime victims – should remain on the books.

“These are the most terrible, heinous crimes to be accused of, and making cases public must be done very carefully and while considering the rights of everyone involved,” she said.

“But if there’s enough evidence for a person to be arrested and charged then it’s in the community’s best interests to know who the person is.

“We’ve looked after the alleged offender to that point – it’s time we looked after the community and the alleged victim, who deserves to have their story heard in full.”

Under the Act, the identity of alleged sex offenders may not be publicly revealed until they have entered a plea or been ordered to stand trial.

Individuals who breach that law face a $10,000 fine while media outlets can be fined up to $120,000.

In 2011, the law was reviewed – at the behest of the then-Labor Government – by former NT chief justice Brian Martin, who recommended it be scrapped.

However, former Attorney-General John Rau instead opted for a half-measure, allowing the media to seek to have the ban lifted in cases of “genuine public interest”.

Since then, the media has succeeded in just one such application – against former State MP Bernard Finnigan, who was later convicted of accessing child exploitation material online.

Associate Professor Dr Joseph Fernandez, from Curtin University, said SA had a “rather significant, extensive reliance on” secrecy.

“Relying on the courts to exercise discretion in favour of public disclosure is not something that inspires a lot of confidence,” he said.

“The burden in these cases should be reversed – the alleged offender should have to prove why he deserves anonymity, instead of arguing for the public’s right to know.”

He said sexual offending was a global issue, as shown by the #MeToo movement – and SA was “falling behind the curve”.

“One of the ways things can get better, for victims and for society, is by sending a clear message to those who are inclined to offend,” he said.

“That message must be ‘you will be outed, you will have to face public scrutiny, and it will be sooner rather than later’.”

Carly Ryan Foundation chief executive Sonya Ryan said publicity assisted police.

“If names are known, we may have other victims come forward – and we may prevent another victim,” she said.

“This law should be lifted – the community expects it.”

Survivors and Mates Network founder Craig Hughes-Cashmore said alleged sex offenders did not deserve special treatment.

“I do not know why any society would have one special set of rules for one set of criminals – it makes no sense,” he said.

Follow @SeanFewster