Magistrate Richard Pithouse counselled over victim-blaming remarks

A Melbourne Magistrate who claimed a rape victim had “buyer’s remorse” has been counselled by prestigious judicial figures.

Magistrate Richard Pithouse has been counselled over comments he made about a rape victim. Picture: Hamilton Spectator.

A controversial Melbourne magistrate has been counselled over his comments suggesting a rape complainant suffered “buyer’s remorse”.

A Judicial Commission of Victoria investigation into Richard Pithouse’s conduct last year determined his remarks could reasonably be construed as victim-blaming.

The judiciary watchdog found his comments were “inappropriate, insensitive and gratuitous and should not have been made”.

It recommended Mr Pithouse be counselled by Chief Magistrate Lisa Hannan in the need to “exercise sensitivity, courtesy and respect in the courtroom towards all court users”.

In a report provided to the commission on Monday to update on Mr Pithouse’s progress almost a year on, Judge Hannan said she had personally counselled the magistrate on appropriate judicial conduct.

A retired County Court judge had also been engaged and met with Mr Pithouse for some 22 hours over 2020, mentoring and coaching him, and also listening to random recordings of his court hearings to ensure standards were being met and maintained.

Judge Hannan said Mr Pithouse had “actively engaged in the mentoring process” and “accepted the criticisms of his conduct and acknowledged the shortcomings of his approach”.

The commission’s investigation into Mr Pithouse was sparked a month after the Herald Sun revealed his comments in December 2018.

Mr Pithouse, at a hearing in October 2018 where a rape victim was seeking compensation, suggested she had “put herself in that position” following a night of drinking.

He went on to say “intoxication is not an excuse” and “there is an old adage that you can’t profit from your own malfeasance”.

Mr Pithouse also suggested the reason the victim called a sexual assault crisis line the following morning was “buyer’s remorse”.

“The comment indicates the officer had a closed mind and was not impartial,” the commission found in April last year.

“The officer’s comment was highly inappropriate and insensitive and to a reasonable observer, the comment would be construed as the officer speculating the applicant had not been raped, but rather consented to sexual intercourse and then regretted it the next day.”

The commission also found further “inappropriate and insensitive” comments made by Mr Pithouse about a victim of family violence during a bail hearing in November 2017 infringed the standards of conduct expected of judicial officers.

On hearing the victim had not made a statement, he said: “Well, it’s her right to get beaten up if she wants to, I suppose” and “she won’t make statements, she won’t make complaints, what am I to do?”.

The commission also ruled that a September 2017 crash in which Mr Pithouse damaged property before fleeing the scene and not reporting it to authorities was “not a momentary lapse in judgment but a conscious decision to continue driving”.

Mr Pithouse’s failure to stop showed a failure to respect and observe the law, and brought the office of magistrate into disrepute, it found.

The magistrates court, in a statement, said all the matters were “now closed”.