This chapter presents an overview of the Australian response to cases of child sexual abuse. At each stage of the criminal justice process, commentary is presented on additional complexities that may be experienced by Indigenous children and their families.
A definition of child sexual abuse
Sexual abuse of children refers to: any sexual activity between an adult and a child who is below the age of consent (as defined in each particular jurisdiction); sexual activity that is non-consensual between young people; or any sexual activity between a child below the age of 18 years old and a person in a position of authority or power, such as a parent or teacher. “Sexual activity includes fondling genitals, masturbation, oral sex, vaginal or anal penetration by a penis, finger or any other object, fondling of breasts, voyeurism, exhibitionism and exposing or involving the child in pornography” (Price-Robertson et al., 2013) .
Reporting and mandated reporting
Reports of alleged child sexual abuse may come from a range of different sources. These include the children themselves, relatives or friends, or child protection workers. Generally, reports are made to the offices of the police or the child protection department of the jurisdiction, or they may be submitted
anonymously through a website set up to allow citizens to report crime. Of cases that are reported, many are due to mandatory reporting rules.
The term mandatory reporting describes the legislative obligation for persons in specific occupations to report suspected cases of child abuse and neglect to
authorities (Mathews & Scott, 2016). Mandatory reporting is in effect in all
Australian jurisdictions, however the laws differ between them. The main differences are regarding who is mandated to report, and what types of abuse are required to be reported. Generally, the legislation requires that the person make a mandatory report if they suspect or have the belief, based on reasonable grounds, that the child has been or will be neglected or abused, sexually or physically.
Persons required to make a mandated report vary by jurisdiction. In Queensland, only persons in a limited number of occupations are bound by mandatory reporting. Western Australia has a more wide-ranging list, and the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria have more extensive lists again. In the Northern Territory (and Victoria for sexual abuse) every adult is mandated to make a report. Occupations that are most frequently required to make reports are those who deal with children as part of their work, such as teachers, health professionals and police. Differences in statutory responsibilities for child protection between jurisdictions can result in children being missed, which has led to the development of a National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009-2020 (Council of Australian Governments, 2009).
In Indigenous communities, implementing mandatory reporting may be more difficult. Service providers in some remote communities in the Northern Territory were found to be unaware of mandatory reporting requirements, and were also
concerned that if they reported sexual abuse in their community, they may be identified in the community as being the source of the report (Wild & Anderson, 2007). Issues were also identified in regards to language. In some communities, the concept of mandatory reporting was less well understood due to low levels of English, and lack of understanding of some of the terms that were used. Wild and Anderson recommended more education and training on mandatory reporting in many communities.
Rates of sexually transmitted infections in remote Indigenous communities have been found to be higher than in urban or non-Indigenous communities
(Community Development and Justice Standing Committee, 2008). Guidelines have been set up in some jurisdictions to address mandatory reporting requirements specifically in relation to these cases. In the Northern Territory, any evidence of a child under 14 having sexual activity must be notified to a centralised agency. For children 14 years and older, the health professional is required to use their
professional judgement when deciding to make a notification.
The New South Wales Ombudsman noted that there was a need to collect and analyse data about the mandatory reporting of sexual abuse of Indigenous children (New South Wales Ombudsman, 2012). The report specifically recommended the examination of which agencies and occupations were making mandatory reports in specified locations.
Response to reporting
Following a report of suspected abuse, an initial assessment is made, and the report is then referred to the appropriate government agency. Each jurisdiction has a multi-disciplinary response to the investigation of child abuse, including specialised policing units, departments of child protection, and other relevant organisations such as health and education. This integrated response attempts to provide safety for the child as the first priority, whilst also allowing for the investigation, including
collection of evidence, to take place (State of Victoria, 2012). An initial interview is made with the child if they have not made a clear verbal disclosure to any person (known as a prior or previous disclosure). If the child discloses in this interview, the interview is immediately terminated so that a video recorded forensic interview can be conducted with the child, to ensure that the child’s evidence is accurately
documented, and admissible in court.
Giving evidence in criminal proceedings can be traumatising for children, and cross-examination is considered to be the most traumatising aspect, particularly in sexual offence proceedings (Richards, 2009). Understanding legal language and answering questions during cross-examination is difficult, and particularly so for younger children. Presenting forensic interviews that have been previously recorded in court is one way that this exposure can be reduced. All Australian jurisdictions, therefore, conduct video recorded investigative interviews, so that these can be presented as evidence-in-chief during criminal proceedings. Every attempt is also made to keep the number of interviews, and the number of interviewers, to a minimum (Government of South Australia, 2016). Where further information is
required, or if new evidence is brought forth, more interviews with the child may be required.
The prior recording of the interview can also increase the quality of the child’s evidence by capturing this evidence whilst it is still fresh, and by lowering the likelihood of the child’s memory being contaminated. The child’s first recorded account of the suspected abuse may be the most detailed, clear, and complete description. If the child subsequently cannot, or refuses to, give evidence, and if no physical or other corroborating evidence is available, the recording of this interview may be the only evidence available against the suspected offender (Corns, 2001).
Interviews are usually conducted in interview rooms where cameras and microphones have been unobtrusively placed. The visual recording of the forensic interview provides the jury with an accurate representation of how the child presented during the interview. Effective investigative interviewing is essential to elicit the best evidence, and relies on effective training of interviewers (Powell, 2005).
As has been noted above, presenting testimony can be highly traumatic for children generally, but Indigenous children may face additional difficulties in giving evidence. Often, English is not their first language or they have under-developed English skills, they may have poor school attendance, and may also be more likely to be affected by abuse and neglect within their own family systems than non-
Indigenous children. These factors make Indigenous children particularly vulnerable as witnesses in sexual abuse trials, which require reliable oral evidence (Cossins, 2006).
Indigenous children may also have fears of disclosing in an interview, due to possible repercussions from family and community (Stanley et al., 2003). The abuse of children in Indigenous communities is embedded in the high rates of violence experienced in these communities. This violence has been particularly focussed against women and children (Keel, 2004; Sutton, 2011). Threats from the offender and the offender’s family may jeopardise how willing a child and the child’s family may be to report and disclose abuse.
Indigenous children who have been sexually abused may have added feelings of shame and embarrassment that are influenced by their cultural background, and this can further affect their willingness to participate in the criminal justice system. Shame can have a different connotation in Indigenous culture, and Indigenous peoples have reported shame in situations where non-Indigenous people would not describe being ashamed (Sharifian, 2005). A study that examined investigative interviewing of Indigenous children found that Indigenous children who verbally expressed shame in forensic interviews had been delivered significantly more interviewer prompts before they made a disclosure of sexual abuse, than children who did not verbally express shame (Hamilton, Brubacher, & Powell, 2016).
A further impediment for Indigenous children when presenting evidence, may be the differences in communication styles of Indigenous people compared to non- Indigenous Australians, such as use of silence, non-verbal cues and a tendency to agree out of politeness with what is suggested (Eades, 1982; 2013). Suggestive questions from interviewers can increase the likelihood of contradictory evidence (Lamb & Fauchier, 2001). Indigenous defendants and witnesses may be silenced in
the justice system by service providers who are ignorant of Indigenous cultural values and practices (Eades, 2000).
Investigation of Child Sexual Abuse Cases
In most jurisdictions, the child is interviewed by one interviewer, whilst a second interviewer observes from a hidden room. If the investigative officer is not the interviewer, then they may also observe the interview from outside. During breaks in the interview, the observing officers will provide feedback to the lead interviewer regarding what further information may be needed. Following the conclusion of the interview, the officer investigating the case will gather the
available information into a brief of evidence. This may include medical or physical evidence, witness statements, DNA results and photos. If it is determined that a criminal law may have been violated, the suspect will be apprehended and interviewed. Charges will be presented to the suspect, with specific details on the case. The suspect is then given the opportunity to dispute this by supplying an alibi.
The investigator uses all the available evidence to decide whether to refer the case for prosecution. Decisions by police to prosecute the suspect will depend on whether the brief constitutes prima facie evidence that supports the charges, and if legal requirements have been met (Brereton & Cole, 1988). Evidence obtained in the interview needs to be sufficiently detailed in order to enable this decision to be made (Government of South Australia, 2016). If the case goes ahead, the Magistrates Court will receive the evidence, and commit the defendant to trial at an appropriate court.
One of the particular issues for Indigenous cases at this stage may be obtaining corroborating witnesses. The tenuous relationship of law enforcement officers and human service agencies with Indigenous communities has been eroded over generations, and has been strongly affected by the removal of children from their communities. Having their children taken away is a real fear for many Indigenous peoples internationally, the reality of which is reflected in the high numbers of Indigenous children in out of home care in Canada (Trocmé et al., 2004) and Australia (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2011; Berlyn et al., 2011; Commissioner for children and young people, 2015; Wild & Anderson, 2007). If corroborating the abuse may cause children to be removed from their homes and communities, many family and community members may refuse to give evidence to support the case, thus making the case more difficult to prosecute.
Prosecution of Child Sexual Abuse Cases
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions assumes responsibility for the case once it has been committed to trial. This office is an independent authority that is responsible for prosecuting serious offences that have been committed against state criminal law. A prosecutor is assigned to each case that has been committed to trial, and will decide whether to prosecute based on three factors: evidential strength, prospects for conviction and whether the case is in the public interest (Community Development and Justice Standing Committee, 2008). If the prosecutor decides to continue the case, an indictment will be filed, and a trial date set. The defendant is able to plead guilty at any point before or during the trial.
Australia uses an adversarial trial system, where advocates for the
prosecution and defence present their evidence in turn. A judge or jury decide on the outcome of the case. The trial begins with opening addresses from the prosecution and defence. In cases of child sexual abuse, the prosecutor may then choose to play one or all of the forensic interviews as the child’s evidence in chief. The child will usually be required to be available for cross-examination at the trial; however, in some jurisdictions, cross-examination has taken place previously, and the recording is played to the judge or jurors at the trial (Judicial Commission of New South Wales, 2014). If cross-examination of the child takes place during the trial, the child will give evidence remotely via video link, to minimise exposure of the child to the court and to the defendant. Any further evidence in the trial, including the
appearance of witnesses, is presented by the opposing parties, and the evidence is tested through examination. The trial concludes with a closing address from each side.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that going to trial may be more challenging for Indigenous families. Indigenous children may be more likely to withdraw from a court case than non-Indigenous children because of the pressure from some communities not to proceed with child sexual abuse cases. Further, community pressures may mean that corroborating witnesses, who had previously made a statement, may be less likely to show up for a court appearance. Timeliness of court cases may be another issue for many Indigenous families. When cases take 12-18 months to get to court (as documented in: Government of Western Australia, 2013), families have often dealt with the issue and do not want to revisit it. Finally,
Indigenous children, issues with distance or remoteness, and poverty, and may therefore be more hesitant to proceed with them.
Summary
This section has outlined the stages involved in proceeding a case of child sexual abuse through the criminal justice system, and some of the additional complexities that may be experienced by Indigenous complainants. These
complexities are characterised by difficulties with language, family and community tensions, and the interface between Indigenous peoples and authorities. The next chapter will discuss the context for research on Indigenous peoples.