You are here: Home 
Victims Stories Michelle
Victims Stories Michelle
|
See the new VOCAL INFORMATION CENTRE website for victims rights, victims versus offenders rights, types of crimes, criminal law, resources, and more information. Enter the site by clicking the icon below. |
| Michelle |
|
A victim of rape makes a statement for victims’ compensation about her experience because the court system did not do her justice. Names have been changed to protect the victim – and sadly, also the perpetrator!I, Michelle Brown (not my real name) of Brooklyn in the State of New South Wales, do solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:- I was the victim of a horrific crime that changed my life. The case was prosecuted in the District Court. I was not given any preparation that allowed me to comprehend the games to be found in the legal system. Games that used me, the victim of a harrowing, frightening, damaging ordeal meant I was of no more importance than a piece of garbage. I experienced my part in the trial R v J as an ambush; trial by ambushing the victim. As background, let me explain that every piece of Crown evidence, every statement etc that the Crown may have – whether it supports the Crown case or not, must be presented to the defence well before any trial commences. However, there is absolutely no requirement for the defence to disclose their evidence or tactics at all. The effect of this is that the defence can closely scrutinise all evidence for discrepancies or ideas to use to its advantage, but the Crown cannot. The defence can then instruct or coach any witnesses, but the Crown cannot – indeed the Crown’s obligation is to ensure there has been no collusion between Crown witnesses. There is no similar obligation on the defence. A witness, even a victim, may never know what evidence has been served by the Crown, or which witnesses have been called, or what they said in evidence. As the case unfolds, the victim-witness may find themselves responding to unforeseen, even outlandish lies and false evidence or information given by the defence legal representative, by the accused and by the defence witnesses. The Crown cannot present evidence to refute such information or allegations, which in any other arena would be able to be open to charges of slander or defamation. Those things don’t apply in Criminal Courts. This case arose because I was criminally assaulted. However my needs were never central to the matter, and all the rights lay with the accused. He was entitled to legal protection and representation, but there is nothing like that for me, the victim. The Criminal Law is not interested in the rights of or protection for, a victim. I do not believe the jury understands the victim is not a party to the proceedings, or that the rules for prosecutors and defenders are quite markedly different. I certainly did not know, before the case was heard. What happened only became obvious to me in hindsight, after I could eventually bear to think about what had happened to me in court. The defence plan of attack had been to blacken my character, and present their corrupted version of who I was. Their aim was to trivialise my experience of victimisation. The defence set out to present me as an obsessive and vicious woman, in order to prejudice the judge and the jury to believe what is called “evidence of my bad character’. The Defence Counsel’s role was to undermine the version of events that I had given. I had expected my testimony to be tested, but I expected the truth to be important. What I didn’t comprehend was that highly paid court professional could introduce material so untrue and be allowed to do so. For example, the barrister introduced the idea of that a relationship between the defendant and myself, had endured for a period of thirty years, when it was one of less than two year’s duration. I did not understand that this officer of the court could speak on the defendant’s behalf, yet have no responsibility at all for verifying the truth of what he alleged on behalf of his client. Defence Counsel knew well that the Crown could not produce evidence or witnesses to dispute the ‘facts’ he presented at this stage of proceedings. He knew his assertions could not be disproved by evidence or witnesses (because such evidence would have to have been presented earlier). He knew that the way cases are investigated and prosecuted would not have included gathering evidence of this nature. He knew he was unlikely to be challenged, or to be reality tested as to the truth of his allegations and assertions, made on behalf of his client. This upstanding and well-paid officer of justice also knew he could argue that he was only using material his client gave him – therefore he could not be charged with deliberately perverting justice, or perjury. His client could not be charged for his part, because it was what the counsel said, and evidence had not come directly from the accused. A legal device for lying to the court. Had this trial been seated within the rules of fair play, the defence would have disclosed its evidence before the hearing. The Crown might then have taken the time to challenge the assertions and evidence given by the accused and the defence witnesses. They may have been successful in exposing this parody of justice. For example: PS, is the defendant’s sister, and PC is a friend of the defendant and owns the business where the defendant is employed. Ms. PS and Mr PC made accusations and allegations in court about me, dating from as far back as 1960. The fact was though; I had never met either of these people until 1991 when I first began a relationship with the defendant. Ms KF is the ex partner of the accused – she left frantic messages on my answering machine for me to ring her, and then made many calls to me for the two years of my relationship with her ex. Her calls repeatedly warned me, and included complaints of her fear of him because of his continual abusive behaviour. She even wanted to put a bullet through his head. I wish I had listened to her warnings. On January 19, 1998 Ms F rang me. She seemed very distressed, saying words to the effect that the defendant was using threats to influence her to give evidence and to lie in court against me. She said that he had threatened her that he did not want a hostile witness, and that she was to comply with his demands of the evidence he wanted her to give at the trial. I told police. Ms F spoke to Detective W on January 22 1998, about the accused making these threats to her and that she was frightened of him. She had previously given a sworn statement to Senior Constable B that the accused had made threats to her and that she was in fear of him. Ms F admitted she had previously lied to police over a motor vehicle accident when the defendant was driving, because of his power over her. That evidence was to the effect that he had threatened her so that she had admitted to being the driver of the vehicle and responsible for the crash, when in fact he had been the driver. She had been badly injured in that accident, yet was intimidated into ‘taking the rap’ for his offence. This material was not used by the prosecution. The defendant had witnesses take the stand and give evidence against me, who claimed to have associated with me. I had never met them and say they had no first-hand knowledge of my actions. These witnesses were all very well tutored, rehearsed and consistent with each other. The Crown had nothing to challenge them. The Crown was left unprepared, ignorant and mute. Their lies were accepted without question. The arena of court gave no consideration to the extent that I have life threatening chronic asthma and arthritis, my movements are totally restricted, I have difficulty in just walking. I am in constant pain and restricted to very limited exertion to whatever I do. Yet it was vigorously and repeatedly suggested by the defence that I willingly and regularly participated in consensual bizarre sexual acts and in very unscrupulous places. My health, let alone my dignity, would make these events totally impossible. My real experience was that since leaving the defendant in 1993, he has invaded and intimidated my life with continual threats, stalking, assaults and violent sexual assaults. He repeatedly threatened my life and attempted to kill or main me when he fire bombed my car. This was the real price I had paid because I rejected him, refusing to let him back into my life. The impact of his assaults and behaviour has meant that I and my children have lived in constant fear for our lives. It was only after the bombing of my car that with police involvement and the support and guidance of a Rape Counsellor that I gained the courage to take a stand against the accused. The humiliation, torment and degradation by the defendant were one thing. It was another to be repeatedly forced, degraded and humiliated in the tormenting style used by this legal abuser who appeared to enjoy forcing me into vividly reliving these awful events. In front of this audience, in the courtroom I went to expecting ‘justice and safety’, I was berated, ridiculed, yelled at and accused of lying. I felt like I was treated as the guilty party, that I was on trial instead of being the victim; the total invasion of my privacy in such a despicable manner was more than I could endure. The defendant sat and smiled and nodded at my pain. It became intolerable when the supposedly independent arbiter of fact and law entered the attack. He called me ‘a woman scorned’ and ‘filth’. He was the judge, who then went on for hours to decide the apparent relevance of whether I was wearing a watch at the time of a particular assault. He said words to the effect ‘that it was physically impossible for the accused to have raped her’. The defendant is twice my size, very physically strong and has a history (proven) of violence. His history was irrelevant; mine was invented by the defence. I felt that I was being raped all over again, only this time in front of all those witnesses - the defendant, the defence, the judge and the jury, the people in court, and that this time, everyone just sat back and watched me being raped, or joined in it. The defendant had previously been convicted of assaults on my daughter and myself in 1993. At one point in the proceedings, the defence barrister showed his contempt for the law and punishment, saying to the judge rhetorically asking “WHO CARES, THERE IS NO GAOL IN THOSE” referring to his disinterest in simple assault charges. The assaults were serious – just the charges laid were less than the real assaults. I was trivialised again. This trial has had a mammoth impact on myself, my family and friends. My friend AG was a primary witness for me. She was a very sick and nervous person but wanted to do the right thing and bear witness to what she saw. She was completely unable to defend herself from the attack of the defence counsel. Such was the effect on A of the trial, and the added burden of coping with the very emotional condition of myself, and the fear of the accused vengeance which the law had shown was obviously acceptable, A took her own life just weeks after the trial. I suffer such guilt, with feelings that my friend’s death was caused by me, by this trial about me, because of the fact that I had gone to her home after being raped and that she had witnessed my injuries. I had no idea that the person one reports to first in a sexual assault matter becomes a witness of importance. I just ran to my friend for safety and comfort. Detective W, the arresting officer, has been off on stress leave since a matter of weeks after the trial. All the questions I had about the trial are now left unanswered. I feel totally abandoned. Those with whom I was able to confide and who knew the truth and witnessed the traumatic experience that I suffered were my great support through such a terrifying experience. They have moved on. I am tormented that there is no punishment for all those who lied, I have no right to appeal, I am the victim of horrific aggravated sexual violence and the accused was wrongfully acquitted. And no one in the political, court system or bureaucratic system, cares – if their responses to my letters are any indication. During the trial some photographs were passed around the court as ‘evidence’ of my lewd, sexual behaviour with the defendant. I did not know how such material could exist because I didn’t do those things, yet there they were. I was so appalled by the pornographic content that I didn’t look at them. A few weeks after the trial I received a package in the mail, from the prosecutor’s office. Amongst the papers were the photographs. The person in them was clearly not me and to me it was easy to show ‘why not’. The Crown had simply accepted that material, as if it were true. The jury believed had believed it was me. I am gutted. How could such obscene manipulation of truth, evidence, and blatant corruption, be engaged in by so many people with so much power? And why does no one care? Why would a victim report a sexual crime? Do you comprehend the depth of betrayal you dish out to victims? Thank you for reading about the impact on me of this crime, and of the system that allows such disgraceful abuse of the state’s citizens. I have only just now found VOCAL. They get it. They have saved me. Signed and dated 1999. |
Support VOCAL
Every year in NSW 26% or 1,767,008 people are victims of crime, many more threatened, and too many killed.
Help say NO to Violence!
Demand a fair go for victims of crime and donate or join VOCAL
ABN 99 422 394 085
Sponsors
VOCAL's online presence proudly sponsored by T3 Creative - small business web specialists.
VOCAL very gratefully expresses appreciation to Anthony at T3 Creative for his generous assistance with website design, hosting, and support.
