Why the media is unable to picture or name three of the four teenage males accused of gang raping a girl in southwest Sydney
When news broke on Wednesday that four teenagers had been charged following an alleged six hour gang-rape of a 17-year-old girl in western Sydney late last year, social media lit up with two questions: who on earth were these boys and why were their identities being protected by media and shielded from the public?
So far we know that police claim on December 15, a 16-year-old boy, unknown to the girl, approached her in a shopping centre car park in Liverpool.
The girl reluctantly let him in her car to 'sit and chat' before he allegedly attacked her.
According to NSW police, the 16-year-old filmed certain parts of the incident which he broadcast on a video call to his mates.
She then drove him to Wheat park, believing it to be her best chance of him leaving. But once there, two other teens got in. A fourth man also joined who took control of the car, and police claim that the group then took turns raping the girl, sometimes two at once.
When they finally left, at around 11.30pm, the 'distraught' girl called a friend who took her to Liverpool police station.
Five days later on December 20, the 14 and 16-year-old boys were charged with multiple offenses and this week, an 18-year-old and 19-year-old were also arrested and charged.
So far, Adam Abdul-Hamid, the 19-year-old, is the only accused who has been named by the media.
And all four co-accused have yet to have their day in court and are entitled to the presumption of innocence.
The case, however, highlights an issue that many readers often find confounding: regardless of any eventual verdict, it is more likely than not that we will never be able to report the other three boys' names to you.
This is because in New South Wales, the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 prohibits the publication or broadcasting of the names of people under 18 involved in criminal proceedings.
This is to protect their long term reputation from the potential stigma associated with criminal charges, and to aid in their re-entry into society and rehabilitation in the event of a guilty verdict.
The idea is that people under 18 deserve a second chance and should not have their reputations permanently damaged due to mistakes made in 'childhood'.
And for petty, non-violent crimes, this may make sense.
But when it comes to allegations of gang-rape, is the law keeping up with community expectations?
And is the principle of open-justice being served?
Theoretically, in NSW a sentencing judge can make an order to remove the suppression gag on their names at this point of sentencing, but this almost never happens.
But at what price?
I recently interviewed a young woman in Sydney who was sexually assaulted by a teenage boy. She wasn't alone. In total he was charged with sexually assaulting up to six teen girls. He was convicted of a number of those offenses but since they all happened while he was under 18, his name cannot be published in relation to those convictions.
Worse still, once he turned 18, he was charged again with another offense, but this time was found not guilty due to a hung jury. To Google his name now, you would conclude he has no criminal record as the one and only result suggests that he was charged but found not guilty of the adult offense. It's a result which could easily mislead any young woman who now crosses paths with him.
Another perverse outcome of this law is that journalists often have to suppress critical information in gang-rape cases of how boys or men are linked.
While I make no comment about the case announced yesterday, it's not uncommon, for example, in gang-rape cases for the accused to be linked through family, a sporting team, or some other club or association.
However if one or more of the alleged offenders are under 18, journalists must suppress not only their name, but also their identity and this will often extend to other personal information, including their family, school, sporting teams and so on.
The result is that journalists are sometimes forced to leave out critical information which helps give context and can inform violence prevention research - including how the teen boys know each other.
Most perverse of all though is how this law can impact complainants and victims.
Rightly or wrongly, they are left with the perception that the accused's right to privacy and reputation is more important than their own and , but at times this law can directly silence victims.
I'll never forget meeting a young woman who was raped at age five by her 17-year-old brother. He was found guilty and served jail time. She wanted to reveal her name and tell her story as part of her healing. But because they share a surname, and his identity is automatically suppressed due to his age at the time of the offending, her identity is forcibly kept secret by the law too, meaning she cannot ever share her name and full story, absent a specialised court exemption.
These are just some of the perverse outcomes of this law aimed at protecting young people.
But finally, it's worth remembering that aside from upholding the principles of open-justice, there are other public interest and public safety arguments for naming convicted offenders. Specifically, when media do publish the names of men and women who have been charged with, or found guilty of sexual violence, this can empower other victims in the community to come forward and report: both in general and specifically in relation to that named offender.
The reason for this is that many victims of sexual assault choose not to report at first, especially if they believe they are 'the only one'.
Isolation, shame, self-blame, fear of not being believed, and fear of reprisals are just some of the reasons many stay silent.
But when a victim learns their offender has been charged with another offense this can empower them to take steps to report: not only is there strength and safety in numbers, but survivors also instinctively understand that an offender who harms two people is capable of harming many more.
It takes enormous strength and courage to report a sexual crime. I hope as a community we know how to stand with those who do.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
39 minutes ago
- News.com.au
Ben Roberts-Smith battles for last chance to overturn defamation loss in Australia's highest court
Ben Roberts-Smith has turned to Australia's highest court in a last-ditch effort to sue Nine Newspapers over war crime allegations. Roberts-Smith claims the Federal Court bolstered its murder conclusions on the assumption that because he didn't challenge evidence, he accepted it as fact. Roberts-Smith filed an application for special leave with the High Court of Australia on Wednesday, just a month after he failed to overturn his loss to Nine Newspapers over war crimes allegations made in a series of stories. Federal Court Justice Anthony Besanko in June 2023 dismissed Roberts-Smith's multimillion-dollar lawsuit against The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and Canberra Times in a landmark judgment. Justice Besanko found that Roberts-Smith was involved in the murder of four unarmed men during his deployment in Afghanistan. The findings were made on the balance of probabilities, which is less than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. His appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court was dismissed by Justices Nye Perram, Anna Katzmann and Geoffrey Kennett in May The court found that while Justice Besanko made two errors in his judgment, they were described as 'immaterial'. Roberts-Smith's latest bid to overturn his defamation loss hinges on two grounds, including claims the Federal Court made an error by assuming he accepted facts because he didn't contest evidence. 'The Full Court erred by treating the appellant as affirmatively accepting facts that were not recontested, and using that assumed acceptance to bolster its murder conclusions, thus misconceiving the effect of unchallenged findings on appeal,' the special leave application stated. The other ground argued the Federal Court preferred 'delayed, contradictory and memory-impaired' eyewitness accounts over Australian Defence Force (ADF) operational records. This was in relation to Roberts-Smith's involvement in the murder of two prisoners at a compound called Whiskey 108 in 2009, the murder of a handcuffed shepherd Ali Jan at Darwan in 2012, and Roberts-Smith directing members of the Afghan partner forces to shoot a man following the discovery of a cache of weapons during an operation at Chinartu. The application argues the findings of war crimes couldn't be reached to the requisite standard under the Evidence Act as they relied on 'inconsistent and memory-impaired recollections' from more than a decade after the events and despite 'exculpatory' ADF operational records. ADF records document 'lawful engagements and no executions' and would-be engagements 'consistent with the laws of armed conflict', Roberts-Smith claims. Further, the application claims the records were discounted on 'speculative or flawed grounds', including by treating them as 'no more than repetitions of the applicant's account' or rejecting them on 'asserted inconsistencies that arose only at trial and were not evident at the time of reporting' in the cases of Darwan and Chinartu. Finally, it argued that the findings were reached without the 'criminal-trial safeguards of a jury, prosecutorial disclosure and proof beyond reasonable doubt', and the Evidence Act had been misapplied in regard to the satisfaction of 'facts tantamount to criminal guilt'. Roberts-Smith continues to deny the allegations, last month releasing a statement that said: 'Sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant, and I believe one day soon the truth will prevail.'
News.com.au
40 minutes ago
- News.com.au
Horror as 11 people trapped inside minibus on major highway in Melbourne's east
A minibus has crashed into a pub Melbourne's eastern suburbs, leaving 11 people trapped inside. Emergency services were called to the corner of Glenferrie Rd and Dandenong Rd in Malvern about 9.25am on Friday after reports a minibus had crashed into the side of a pub. A Victoria Police spokesperson told NewsWire that 11 people were trapped inside the bus at the time of the incident. Firefighters worked to free the passengers who were unable to get out of the crushed bus. 'The passengers and driver were still on-board and unable to evacuate' a Fire Rescue Victorias spokesperson told NewsWire. 'The driver relocated the minibus, allowing firefighters to remove the vehicle door so everyone on-board could evacuate.' Ambulance Victoria were on the scene as they treated the 11 trapped passengers. 'Paramedics assessed 11 patients but no emergency treatment or transport was required,' a spokesperson told NewsWire. Police have launched an investigation into the crash.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Childers Palace Backpackers arsonist Robert Paul Long not being considered for parole
The killer responsible for a deadly hostel fire that claimed the lives of 15 people almost 25 years ago is not being considered for parole because he is considered a "restricted prisoner". Robert Paul Long was sentenced to life in prison with a non-parole period of 20 years for setting fire to the Childers Palace Backpacker Hostel in Queensland on June 23, 2000. There were 88 people inside, mostly young travellers visiting Australia from overseas. Many of them woke to loud cracking sounds and the smell of fire, and frantically crawled through the thick smoke holding onto each other as they escaped. But fifteen people — nine women and six men — were tragically killed. Long, who was 37 at the time, was tracked down days later hiding in bushland, where he attacked a police officer with a knife. The officer drew his firearm and shot at Long, who was injured in the ear before he was finally arrested. Two years later he was convicted of arson, as well as the murders of Australian twins Kelly and Stacey Slarke. Since then he has been confined to the walls of Wolston Correctional Centre, but has made multiple attempts to be freed. Long made an application for parole, but the president of the Queensland Parole Board must decide whether to make a restricted prisoner declaration before he is considered for release. A declaration can vary in length, but could mean he would not be able to apply for parole for up to 10 years. "The parole application is not being considered while the restricted prisoner matter is determined by the president," a statement from Queensland Corrective Services said. A decision on the declaration will be made after victims have been given time to make submissions.
