|
|
Child sex
abuse hysteria and the Ellis case |
|
|
|
|
The wisdom of
Gordon Waugh - Index |
|
|
The Law Commission's
opinions on sexual abuse (July 16) are unbelievably outdated. Its proposed
Limitations Act changes, as they affect claims for sexual abuse, have
horrifying implications for men. One reason given for
change was "repressed memory". No credible scientific research
supports the fanciful notion that women can "repress" memories of
sexual abuse. It has been exposed as dangerous nonsense. The commission's
belief in it is inexcusable. Citing recently
realised emotional trauma or other psychological conditions is disingenuous.
The effects of sexual abuse are idiosyncratic and unpredictable and cannot be
distinguished from the other myriad causes of emotional trauma. Equally, the Rape
Crisis claim it can take 13 to 17 years for women to gather the strength to
take legal action is fatally flawed and unsubstantiated. The commission has
ignored good science, reality and common sense, and is pandering to
irrational beliefs held by some women's groups, turning them into reasons for
changing our law. Proposed changes will simply place more men in jeopardy
from women alleging decades-old sexual abuse. Sunday Star Times Time limit change
reflects push by women for reform -------------------- More people who have
recovered memories of child abuse or come to terms with rape years after the act
will be able to sue their abusers under law changes now before ministers. In a report published
tomorrow, the Law Commission recommends a number of "urgently
needed" amendments to the Limitation Act, which imposes time limits on
civil claims. The amendments reflect
a push by some women's groups for reform in the area of civil suits for rape
or abuse and a desire by the commission to overhaul the 50-year-old act after
attempts in 1988 to get it repealed. One of the commission's
key recommendations centres on claims for exemplary damages for personal
injury, one of the few injury claims not barred by accident compensation
legislation. Legally, people can't
sue someone who abused them as a child if they are over the age of 26, or in
other cases of abuse like rape if six years has passed since the alleged
incident. The limitation has
excluded people suffering from repressed memories, emotional trauma or other
psychological conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder. Rape Crisis reports
suggest it can take 13 to 17 years after rape or abuse before the victims are
prepared to take counselling, let alone legal action. In an attempt to
recognise this situation, the courts have been bending the rules. "The courts have
struggled valiantly to do justice despite the restrictive terms of the
statute, but there are limits to what can be achieved by creative
interpretation, and the real need is for amendments squarely addressing the
problems," said Law Commissioner Donald Dugdale. The commission
recommends inserting a provision into the Limitation Act that allows the
limitation period to start only when a person under a disability (such as as
stress disorder) is able to make a "reasonable judgement" about
taking legal action. The change would not
affect criminal trials. The Accident Insurance Act, passed in 1998, reversed
a Court of Appeal finding that claims for exemplary damages could not be made
after a criminal trial. This increased the likelihood of such claims by
victims of sexual abuse. The amendment is
expected to make it easier to take those claims but it is unlikely to result
in a sudden rush of them. "I suspect that most victims are relatively
content with criminal prosecutions, not everyone will want to resort to
(monetary recompense)," said Dugdale. Ministry of Women's
Affairs chief executive Judy Lawrence said abuse and access to justice were
significant issues for women. "We welcome any
measures that protect the interests of women and lead to increased support
and safety." Barrister Dennis Stickley,
who assisted Rape Crisis in its submission on the issue, said that while the
new recommendation was positive, "the progress of law reform in the area
of sexual abuse is far from complete with this recommendation". "(The commission)
could go further . . . they could remove any limitation on action. There are
(overseas) jurisdictions that approach sexual abuse that way." The report also
contains other changes which, if adopted, will have an impact on other civil
claims. One would see the act
amended to allow the limitation period in some circumstances to start only
when a person discovers a problem, providing it is not more than 10 years
since it developed. In some cases the
limitations are expiring before a person is aware anything is amiss, for example
an injury attributable to an industrial disease. |
