Prominent victims' advocates say judge-alone trials for sexual assault cases could make survivors more comfortable sharing their experiences. Photo / 123rf
Prominent victims' advocates say judge-alone trials for sexual assault cases could make survivors more comfortable sharing their experiences. Photo / 123rf
Prominent victims’ advocates are calling for sexual violence cases to be heard by judges alone, arguing it is a specialist topic that juries are unqualified for.
They say the change could make survivors feel more comfortable revealing intimate details to a courtroom.
However, one defence lawyer has pushedback and said such a change would have serious implications for the justice system and constitutional law.
Parliament last week unanimously passed legislation that stopped courts from issuing permanent name suppression for adult sexual offenders without the victim’s permission.
Chief Victims Adviser Ruth Money told Newstalk ZB it was good progress, but her next focus was looking at the role juries play in sexual violence and family violence trials.
“It is terrifying to give evidence in a room full of a jury of strangers about the sexual violence that happens to you,” she said.
“Can we do that in a smarter, safer way that still ensures that, yes, you’re innocent until proven guilty, but that there are experts making decisions rather than 12 jury members who may or may not know anything about rape myths or coercive control?”
Money said juries were still an important part of the judicial process but had deviated from their origin in tight-knit communities.
“They were able to make expert decisions. There was some knowledge there as well as the evidence. That’s not what we get now. Juries are certainly not a jury of our peers,” she said.
Chief Victims Adviser Ruth Money says the trial process for sexual violence could be safer and smarter. Photo / Dean Purcell.
Advocate Louise Nicholas echoed the call and said jury trials weren’t “adequate for this type of crime”.
She said jurors brought their world views into a courtroom, sometimes to the detriment of the victim.
“The fact that they’ve come forward, they’ve disclosed horrendous acts of sexual violence. I think ... judge-alone trials, and we have had them, works perfectly.”
Nicholas said some jury trials also left victims without closure.
“Even if a judge comes back with not guilty, they explain their reasoning behind that and that is huge for our survivors. Whereas with a jury trial, they just say ‘not guilty’ and we move on.”
“What is so special about trials [with] sexual allegations that we would do away with something as critical and fundamental as a jury trial?”
She said juries had an everyday outlook on the world that wouldn’t be available in a judge-only trial.
“They aren’t strangers, they are very much part and parcel of our right to a jury trial and they actually represent the views of society.”
Dyhrberg argued defendants similarly reveal intimate details to a room full of strangers, but without the privilege of a closed courtroom and without support from a victim’s advocate.
Jordan Dunn is a multimedia reporter based in Auckland with a focus on crime, social issues, policing and local issues. He joined Newstalk ZB in 2024 from Radio New Zealand, where he started as an intern out of the New Zealand Broadcasting School.
