Sexual Offences Unit

Sexual offence matters are particularly challenging to prosecute, are often complicated and are less likely to resolve through pleas of guilty.

The Sexual Offences Unit was created within the Office in 2010 to respond to this by providing specialisation and a best-practice approach in the prosecution of sex offences. Prosecutors continually hone their knowledge and skills in dealing with the complexities of these cases and using the special legislative measures to improve the court experience for victims. Ongoing in-house training is conducted in the Office to ensure that prosecutors are kept up to date with legislative changes and the developments in evidence law that are relevant to this area.

The evidentiary issues arising in this area are complex and evolving. For example, we have had a number of pre trial applications determined on the issue of tendency evidence. These applications often relate to whether the Crown is permitted to run a trial with more than one complainant. Courts all over the country are grappling with these complex issues and there have been a number of such applications in the past year.

The unit plays a key role in achieving greater consistency in the conduct of prosecutions and ensuring sexual assault matters progress through the courts as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, these matters are not given priority listing in the courts, as is the case in some other jurisdictions. However, as the backlog in the courts is decreased generally sexual assault matters have been going to trial sooner, in some cases within about six months of the committal.

The unit works closely with the Witness Assistance Service to ensure all victims are provided with support and information early and throughout the court process. It has also conducted training sessions for the AFP in relation to interviews with children.

Over the last year there have been 71 new sex offence matters commenced and 103 completed. This is consistent with recent years. Recent legislative reforms, in particular permitting a child complainant’s interview with police to be tendered as their evidence-in-chief, have been a contributing factor to conviction rates.

During the reporting period further legislative reforms were made improving the experience for victims in giving evidence and amending the definition of sexual intercourse in line with other jurisdictions.

We have seen an increase in sexual offences involving the use of cameras. In one matter prosecuted this year a defendant used his mobile phone to remotely film a woman having a shower in a shared dormitory. However, the matter was dismissed because the magistrate was not convinced that the charge was appropriate. Other jurisdictions have passed legislation specifically aimed at the use of cameras to record or broadcast sexual activity without the consent of the person being filmed. While we are able to utilise existing legislation, it may be worth considering legislation specifically targeted at these sorts of offences.

Delay is still an issue in the Supreme Court. In Victoria legislation requires sexual offence trials to be listed for trial within three months of committal or the date of filing the indictment. While we are a much smaller jurisdiction, there is much to commend the prioritising of sexual offence proceedings. This could be achieved by building greater flexibility into the docket system to allow sexual offence proceedings to be transferred between dockets to ensure they get the earliest possible trial date.

There have been a number of sexual offence matters where the Crown has appealed against inadequacy of sentence to the Court of Appeal resulting in some significant case law in the ACT.