Dear Editor,
Can you please say if the SN article “I felt I died that night” of July 2, 2022 had the informed consent of this survivor for her impact statement given in court to be published in full together with other details of the case?
Guyana’s Sexual Offences Act (SOA) of 2010, Procedures at Court, article 45 says –“In proceedings where the accused is charged with an offence under this Act, the presiding judge or magistrate shall order the exclusion of members of the public (including the media) from the Court room for the duration of the proceedings, unless the judge or magistrate is of the opinion that such an order is not necessary in the interests of the proper administration of justice..”
In making a determination the Court is to take into account “the nature of sexual offences and consequences of public disclosure of details of such offences on the life of the complainant.
Section 47 identifies specifically that only the following are not excluded from Court – the accused, complainant, any support person, lawyers for complainant or accused. It is well documented that coverage of such cases among a small population can easily be used to identify survivors, there have been cases where names of survivors have been carried in the press, even though SN has not been one of these offending news sources.
The rights of adult survivors to how, where, when and to whom they wish to disclose sexual and gender based crimes is paramount including even the right to withdraw from prosecution of such matters. While the more survivor centred, respectful, timely, well investigated and supportive the court processes are, the increased reporting and successful prosecution of sexual assault cases will be. While we recognize the important role that the media has in dissemination of information this cannot be at the expense of survivors and complainants of sexual and gender based violence.
The purpose of the victim impact statement according to the Model Guidelines for Sexual Offences Cases in the Caribbean Region is to “to give information to the court as to how the offence has affected the complainant and help the court understand the complainant’s views about the offending as well as make the offender aware of how their offending has impacted the complainant.”
There is no stated purpose of the public right to know what happened.
The state must find better ways of tracking the sexual offence cases through data gathering and sharing of such critical information. This can be further achieved by working with survivors to decide how to share the information with the public for preventative action.
Guyana has come some way in modernizing and improving prosecution of sexual offences cases, this we acknowledge including the setting up of specialized sexual offences Courts. However there is need for improvement. We recommend that there be protocols and guidance for journalists as regards survivor-centred reporting of sexual offences cases which recognizes the sanctity of anonymity and confidentiality of survivors of sexual offences; and the right to self determination of disclosure. We urge the Director of Public Prosecutions to ask survivors if they want the details of their impact statements to be shared in the media. Many survivors might not want to see their stories again long after they have been filed in the court records.
We also recommend that the SOA be revised to be clearer and more precise on procedures at court, ensuring that the re-victimization, stigmatization and trauma of sexual offences crimes is kept to a minimum through minimizing disclosure of case details unless with full and informed consent of the survivor.
Yours sincerely,
Danuta Radzik
Vidyaratha Kissoon
Editor’s note:
As is required by the Sexual Offences Act, the trial proceedings, from which the press is prohibited, were held in-camera and at no time was Stabroek News ever present.
The impact statement was read at what was scheduled to be a sentencing hearing, where the press was allowed. Section 51 of the Sexual Offences Act provides for such hearings to take place in public and they are typically where victim impact statements and other social impact statements are presented to the court.
The sole purpose of the publication referred to in the letter and which excluded many details was to give a voice to the survivor—a voice that often gets lost when the focus is placed on the convict at the time of sentencing. There was no publication of any detail even remotely identifying who the survivor might have been.
