000			02315nab a2200325Ia 4500
001			114857
005			20250625151141.0
008			110331s2008 eng
022			_a0028-8373
040			_aWSS _dAFV
100			_aThomas, E.W. _92206
245			_aThe Evidence Act 2006 and women _cThomas, E.W.
260			_aWellington, New Zealand _bLexisNexis _c2008
365			_a00 _b0
500			_aThe author, Justice Ted Thomas, is a former Court of Appeal judge
520			_aThis journal article is an address given by the Rt Hon E W Thomas to a Womensfest of the Auckland University Students Association in which he criticises the devaluation of sexual cases under the Evidence Act 2006. The author argues that complainants in sexual cases, who are more often than not women, are placed at a distinct disadvantage by a number of provisions in this recently passed legislation and that a positive trend towards redressing the courtroom imbalance for women who have complained that they have been sexually abused or raped has been arrested by this legislation. The two areas of the Act that are specifically criticised are Section 32, which provides that the fact-finder is not to be invited to infer guilt from the accused's silence before trial, and Subsection (2) of s 35, which renders previous statements of a witness inadmissible unless the statement is necessary to respond to a challenge to the witness's veracity or accuracy based on a previous inconsistent statement or a claim of recent invention. The author suggests that the legal profession, with the support of women's organisations, press for a review of the Evidence Act 2006 and recommends discrete provisions be made to it that redress the imbalances the Act has perpetuated and ensure justice for both victims and the accused in sexual cases.
650	2	7	_2FVC _aGENDER _9269
650	2	7	_2FVC _aJUSTICE _9333
650	2	7	_2FVC _aRAPE VICTIMS _9489
650	2	7	_2FVC _aRAPE _9488
650	2	7	_2FVC _aSEX OFFENDERS _9528
650	2	7	_2FVC _aWOMEN _9645
500			_aNew Zealand Law Journal (4) May 2008 :169-172
650	2	7	_9336 _aLAW _2FVC
650	2	4	_aSEXUAL VIOLENCE _9531
650	2	4	_aSEXUAL VIOLENCE _9531
651	2	4	_aNEW ZEALAND _92588
773	0		_tNew Zealand Law Journal (4) May 2008 :169-172
942			_2ddc _cARTICLE
999			_c1865 _d1865