Warning: This article may be disturbing if you or someone you know has been a victim of sexual assault.
The allegations that a group of teenaged men have raped underage girls, and bragged about it on Facebook, have prompted outrage, and a lot of questions, including:
If the police know who the “Roast Busters” are, and have known what they’ve been up to for two years, why haven’t they been arrested?
If a victim is talking to police, why haven’t charges been laid?
Why is the media referring to “group sex” (or, worse: “being taken advantage of”), and not “rape”?
Police say they do not have enough evidence to lay charges against the men until one of the girls makes a complaint.
They say the men could be charged without a victim’s testimony, criminal standard of proof is high, especially for crimes of a sexual nature, and there is little chance of securing a conviction without (and even with) a complainant.
Up to 90 per cent of sexual offences go unreported, though almost one in five New Zealand women and one in 20 men will be the victims of sexual violence at some stage in their lives.
A recent report on sexual violence in this country pointed out that “sexual violence is the fifth most common offence in New Zealand, but most survivors do not tell anyone because of fear, shame and beliefs they will be blamed”.
The police say their hands are tied, because without a victim’s testimony, they don’t have enough evidence to proceed.
Police Minister Anne Tolley said today that she understood that the Facebook group, through which the Roast Busters were first unearthed, was not active for all of the past two years, and that she is satisfied that police have been actively working to gather evidence against the group since it first came to their attention.
Crown Solicitor Simon Moore told Radio New Zealand that in terms of what he understands from the media reporting of the allegations, it would be a matter of a charge of sexual violation, or sexual violation by rape.
He says there are three things that have to be proven for that charge: first, that there was an act of sexual intercourse; second, that is was not consensual; and thirdly, that there was an absence of belief, on the part of the offender, that the complainant was consenting.
Moore said that, without the cooperation of a complainant, it can be difficult to prove that charge, short of video evidence that plainly shows the offending.
He told Nine to Noon that the essence of a confession online is just as admissible in court as something said to police, but sifting bravado from the truth in comments the men had made online complicated matters.
As such, news media has had to proceed with care in its reporting of the story, resulting in the use of terms that Green MP Jan Logie and others have criticised as “euphemistic”.
While it is true that there are more accurate and less indirect terms that can be used than “group sex” (which reporting of the event has so far seemed to favour) – and without trying to deflect responsibility – there is a balance to be struck.
Before charges have been laid, and even afterwards, reporters have to be sensitive about what descriptions are used and allegations are made, so as to avoid later being found in contempt of court – and even jeopardising attempts made to bring these men to justice.
So until charges are laid, we’re a bit stuck.
The investigation has progressed as a result of the publicity around the case.
3 News reported that two of the Roast Busters were re-interviewed by police yesterday afternoon, and that Detective Inspector Bruce Scott said the investigation was progressing: “We hope to build on the work done by the enquiry team to potentially take us to the stage where we have enough evidence to build a case."
But police have condemned threats of vigilante action made against the men, including a Facebook group set up to publicise a reward of $4000 for “preferably HD” footage of “Roast Busters getting hidings”.
Writing for the feminist blog The Hand Mirror, Scuba Nurse has warned against the inclination to form a “baying mob, crying for justice”:
These young men are not the only people out there perpetrating sex crimes. And we HAVE a justice system. It is flawed, but we need to use it so the flaws are SEEN, and changed, and our system can evolve with our understanding of right and wrong. An example of this is that rape used to be legal within marriage, and the laws evolved for the better with our societal changes.
She has offered some helpful advice on how to act on your frustration.
(And if you or someone you know needs help or support, there are services available.)
