INGRID Irwin was sexually abused over four years as a child. But when she finally came forward and had her assailant charged in 2013, she was left angry and betrayed by a legal system that victimised her all over again.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
And the ironic twist is Ms Irwin is a lawyer.
“As a victim of childhood sexual abuse, I can’t get the system to work for me and I’m a lawyer,” Ms Irwin said.
“The (current) system re-victimises people. We shouldn’t be asking women and children to have faith in the system and come forward unless we can support them in more meaningful ways.
“The system needs to change to serve the victims’ needs. Trying to fit sexual abuse into the legal system is like Cinderella’s ugly step sister trying to fit her foot into Cinderella’s shoe. It doesn’t fit no matter how hard you try.”
When Ms Irwin turned 40, she realised she needed to finally tell the secret she had keept since she was just eight years old.
Over four years, she was repeatedly attacked by a male known to her.
She initially told her family before going to the police, who convinced her to ring her assailant and try to get a taped confession, known as a pretext call.
During the call, he admitted to the abuse, said he was sorry and that he had regretted it all his life. In 2013, he was charged with four counts of rape.
Two days before the committal hearing – and 12 months after she made her initial statement to police – the Office of Public Prosecutions said Ms Irwin’s statement needed more detail of the offences and the charges should have been sexual assault of a minor under 10 years, not rape.
The day of the hearing, the OPP informed Ms Irwin they were withdrawing the charges and replacing them with one count of unlawful assault so the matter could be resolved by way of diversion, which is what the OPP agreed to with the defence lawyer.
She was told her assailant had agreed to this as long as no conviction was recorded.
Ms Irwin refused to have the charges dropped, but was told it was not her choice.
“The problem is it’s their case, the police case, you are merely their witness. You have zero control over the case,” she said.
However, when the hearing started, Ms Irwin stood up and asked the magistrate if she could personally address the court, which she did in the witness box.
After hearing her evidence, the magistrate agreed diversion was inappropriate and the matter should be resolved by way of conviction, with the OPP to come back with the correct charges.
The defendant then chose to go to a committal hearing on those charges rather than accept the magistrate’s offer of a good behaviour bond with conviction.
Two weeks later at a special hearing, the OPP again asked that the remaining charge of unlawful assault be withdrawn, but did not replace it with new, correct charges, which was the whole reason for that special hearing.
This time, the same magistrate accepted the request.
The remaining charge was then dropped. Despite a taped confession, Ms Irwin’s assailant walked free.
“I said it was an insult to me and to every woman for this matter to be recommended for diversion. “How can four counts of rape be reduced to one count of unlawful assault?” she said.
“It’s a magistrate’s role to decide if there’s enough evidence for it to proceed to trial after the committal has actually run and they’ve heard the evidence, not for the OPP to cut me off at the courtroom door.
“Four years of offending reduced to one act? This can’t be right. What message does this send to the community about men’s violence towards women; my right to have my matter heard; the seriousness of the matter; the fact that I have never been told until now about any doubts or weaknesses in my case?”
“Now I have something I will regret for the rest of my life ... but for me, it’s coming forward.
“It’s impossible to navigate the system, yet I am a practising lawyer. What chance do women, including my clients, have if I can’t understand or use it?”
Since her case, Ms Irwin has campaigned passionately for changes to the legal system, speaking at White Ribbon Day events and appearing before the Royal Commission into Family Violence.
Among the recommendations she made to the commission were that victims in a criminal matter should be independently legally represented, victims should have a right to private prosecution, and the defendant’s right to silence should be repealed if they have admitted the offending.
She also said a defendant’s right to make a “no comment” interview should be repealed if they have confessed; victims should always be a party to the proceedings; and the OPP should not have the power to prevent a committal hearing running when the defendant has made admissions.
She added victims should not be used as “investigators” by the police; that pretext calls where an admission is taped should be enough to proceed with the case; statements to police should be scrutinised by the OPP far earlier to ensure correct charges are laid; and victims should get copies of all court documents, as well as monthly case updates.
Ms Irwin also had some advice for sexual assault victims: “Do not go to the police while you are in crisis. Write a chronology and take that instead. Write out dates, times, places, ages, witnesses, evidence and in date order.
“I was overwhelmed by the process. Now, I know my statement suffered for it. I had no time for clear thought, chronology and details of all the offending.”
Ms Irwin has also recently told her children about what happened to her.
“I’m a confident woman in my 40s – my kids can’t believe it had happened to me. But I told them it happened when I was a vulnerable child. No child is immune.
“We can’t live in denial. We must accept where sex abuse happens and when it happens and not sweep it under the carpet with all the other inconvenient truths.
“Stranger danger should not be the message. Sexual abuse and other forms of violence are going on everywhere at an alarming rate.
“Good people who know better must do better. Education won’t stop abuse, especially when they get away with it so lightly in the court system.”
Ms Irwin has only now been allowed to speak about her case after having successfully fought to revoke a suppression order that was made “until further order”.
It was made on the defendant’s application during the criminal proceeding and silenced her, yet she was never served with a copy as she was not a party to the proceeding.
“Victims should not have to fight and pay to get their right to freedom of speech returned to them. We do not need to face another layer of silencing after we fight so hard to break the silence.”
fiona.henderson@fairfaxmedia.com.au