Don’t let Molly Ticehurst die in vain. I don’t care if we restrict civil liberties

Do not let Molly Ticehurst die in vain.

This request is neither cynical nor overly ambitious: Sometimes, the most terrible things provide the opportunity for us to change things for the better.

The death of Molly Ticehurst is so bad, so sad, that I have instinctively pulled away from the details and the allegations about the lead-up to her death. It is raw. It is hard to face. But that is part of the problem; wishing it had never happened will never be the solution.

Molly Ticehurst’s alleged murderer, Daniel Billings, was released on bail just weeks after being accused of sexually assaulting her.

As a community, we are looking away from what is going wrong, and we are failing to face up to what must be done. It is now obvious that our laws restricting males from stalking females (oh, and let’s get it straight – this is a male problem) are grossly inadequate. In Molly’s case, charges have only just been laid, but notwithstanding, in other cases, the existing laws have been proved to fail. They fail day after day – with fatal consequences.

Our social history tells us that when our laws are failing, we change them. Think about the Port Arthur massacre: one of the worst moments in our history was converted into something positive. We can stop bad things if we have the commitment.

Molly’s death tells us it is time to stop the bad things and take drastic action. We need to take steps that might interfere with some civil liberties – but bad luck, frankly, I do not care.

Stronger action must be taken against men credibly accused of stalking, threatening or abusing women. History tells us that the “protection” supposedly afforded by an apprehended violence order is often no protection at all. We need to do more; we need to do things differently.

And it is urgent. The government should act now. Premier Minns has announced yet another inquiry, but that is pointless and wastes valuable time – the outcome is already obvious. The police, with some supervision by the courts, need to be given the power to control the men accused of these offences. Such control orders are already well-recognised. They are applied in many circumstances where there is only a suspicion of risk, and in the absence of a conviction – bail laws and conditions are obvious examples. In other words, it is nothing new, and it can be done.

Reporting conditions and personal trackers are common means of controlling the location and conduct of suspects. Such restrictions are applied to drug dealers – why not apply them to men who place women at physical risk?

It is a principle of our criminal law that it should operate as a deterrent – maybe telling dangerous men that their locations will be monitored will do that. Would saving one woman’s life justify this intrusion? I say yes.

I hear politicians making noble and well-meaning requests for cultural change, but there is no reason to think that is enough. Cultural change might take decades: now is the time to act; now is the time to stop this terrible cycle of violence; now is the time to impose change.

Geoffrey Watson SC is a director at the Centre for Public Integrity.