Skaf trial lawyer’s question that sparked sexual assault laws overhaul
The Skaf gang rape trials triggered a campaign calling for an overhaul of the sexual assault laws and ending the blood sport of ripping a victim to shreds in the witness box.
NSW
Don't miss out on the headlines from NSW. Followed categories will be added to My News.
The game changer was THAT question.
Cross-examining Miss C, the brave young woman who was remorselessly raped 25 times by 14 members of Bilal Skaf’s gang over six hours, the barrister for one of the rapists suggested to her that she had been “moaning in pleasure”.
No one deserved to be treated like Miss C, outside or inside a courtroom. The criminal lawyer who asked that question later bravely spoke out to explain to The Daily Telegraph that a barrister has to follow their client’s instructions and sometimes tough questions have to be asked to establish the truth in a case.
The public that had cheered and sighed with relief when ringleader Skaf was jailed for 55 years was already enraged when his sentence was reduced through a series of appeals to 31 years.
Then the Court of Criminal Appeal was seen as heartless when it slammed then-deputy senior Crown prosecutor Margaret Cunneen SC for showing empathy for Miss C and giving a lecture about the case.
The appeal court banned Ms Cunneen from prosecuting a retrial of one of the rapists and Miss C refused to give evidence again. That rapist was acquitted but he remained in jail for other attacks.
It seemed like the system was slewed towards the perpetrators and The Daily Telegraph reflected the public mood when in 2007 it launched a campaign to overhaul the sexual assault laws and end the blood sport of ripping a victim to shreds in the witness box. We called it simply Justice for Women Now and together with advocates and even judges and lawyers presented the case for change.
It did not achieve everything we called for - “no means no” is still not simply enshrined in the consent laws - but the right of accused sex offenders to a fair trial no longer comes at the expense of the victim.
Victims can now give evidence in a closed court or via videolink and cannot be quizzed directly by their attacker or badgered by overzealous barristers.
The real win was getting people taking notice. For that we are proud.