The Sydney Feminists

Calling all feminist activists!! The NSW Law Reform Commission is reviewing the law surrounding consent in relation to sexual assault. They have released the Consultation Paper , which you can have a look at. To review the law, they are seeking feedback in the form of actual, formal submissions and from a survey they have created. You can remain anonymous. I urge you to respond to this review. T his is a way to get your voice heard, and we must collectively shout our displeasure with the current law. The current consent law has a blind spot, which I’ve written about before but to save your clicks, I’ll summarise: In NSW, when someone is on trial for sexual assault, the crown has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent. Anthony Whealy QC, a former Justice of the Supreme Court of NSW, explained what effect this phrasing has within trials: “(this creates) the unfortunate consequence of focusing almost exclusively on the complainant ....

As I’ve written previously ( click here ), the laws surrounding sexual consent in NSW have a patchy grey area. In NSW, when someone is on trial for sexual assault, the crown has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent. NSW laws are structured in a way that puts the onus of proof on the victim: the victim must prove they did not give consent. The best practice example of consent laws in Australia is said to be either Tasmania or Victoria, wherein (according to Anthony Whealy QC, a former Justice of the Supreme Court of NSW): “the crown must prove that the complainant gave free agreement to sexual intercourse taking place ... and the judge is asked to direct the jury that if the complaint said or did nothing at the time of the sexual intercourse, that means she did not give her free agreement.” As I’ve stated previously, this change switches the focus from the complainant to the accused. In this case, instead of focusing on the ways the complainant ...

You probably heard that Luke Lazarus was found not guilty of sexual assault this week. What you might not have heard is that he was found not guilty despite a jury and two judges determining that the complainant, Saxon Mullins, had NOT consented to sex with him. Upon finding that piece of information out, most people are confused. If someone doesn’t consent, isn’t that rape? Well, the answer to that question might depend on where you live. Saxon Mullins’ identity has been protected for five years because she is a sexual assault complainant. Five years ago, Saxon Mullins was eighteen and had the first sexual encounter in her life. I don’t want to detail that encounter here. It’s Mullins’ story. If you aren’t familiar with this case, here are Mullins’ own words , but if you can’t read them, for brevity I will point out that the sex happened within four minutes of the pair meeting and it was anal. Mullins calls the encounter rape. Lazarus states it was a misunderstanding. Laza...