The voice on the other end of the phone yesterday was nervous and furtive. I was talking to an officer at the District Court in Cairns, trying to get a copy of the sentencing remarks of Judge Sarah Bradley in the case involving the s-xual assault of a 10 year old Aboriginal girl. Normally, this wouldn’t be a problem, but the official was clearly fearful of providing me with any information. I got a copy of the judgement but it was obvious that the impact of the media and political witchunt on Judge Bradley is adversely affecting the hard-working staff at the Cairns District Court.
So was Judge Bradley’s sentence so outrageous as to warrant the fevered reaction of the past few days? The short answer is no.
Firstly, it has to be remembered that six of the nine defendants were under the age of 16 and jail is rightly regarded as undesirably and grossly inappropriate as a punishment for them. Secondly, custodial sentences are not the way to rehabilitate people, particularly Aboriginal Australians. They simply lead to increased recidivism and an exacerbation of existing behavioural difficulties.
Let’s explode one of the great myths of this case. That because in her sentencing remarks Judge Bradley said that the victim “was not forced and that she probably agreed to have s-x with all of you,” she was implying that the victim consented to s-x with the defendants. This is not the case at all.
All that Judge Bradley was doing was stating the facts of the matter – that this was not a case where the accused physically struggled. That’s all. Judge Bradley is in no way implying that there was legitimate consent on the part of the victim. In short, to compare Judge Bradley with former South Australian judge Derek Bollen, who a decade ago infamously dismissed a complaint about a marital rape as nothing more than “rougher than usual handling”, is grossly unfair and simply wrong.
The aspect of this case that is perhaps the most sickening is the way in which politicians have thrown up their hands in horror and jumped all over Judge Bradley and the Crown prosecutor in the case. These politicians – Liberal, Labor and National, federal and state — are the very same people who have allowed the rate of Indigenous offenders in prison to remain outrageously high year in and year out.
As at 30 June 2006, Indigenous prisoners represented 24% of the total prisoner population. And in Queensland, Indigenous offenders are 11 times more likely to be imprisoned than non-Indigenous offenders. Speaking in March 2006, Queensland Judge Michael Forde set out this scandalous picture of how politicians and the community have failed Aboriginal people in the justice system.
“The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander minority form around 3.2% of the Queensland population. Unfortunately, they make up 23.1% the prison population. In fact, some 55% of youths in detention centres were of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent.”
So where are the screaming headlines, the fulminating editorials, the politicians scrambling over each other to take action about these disgraceful statistics? Nowhere to be seen, heard or found. That’s because there are no votes, or increases in readership, in campaigning to prevent courts from sending Aboriginal offenders to jail in droves.
What those in our community who are stamping their feet in rage at Judge Bradley’s decision are just not getting is this – in some communities, particularly indigenous communities, if you want to ensure that offenders are rehabilitated and therefore the community is safer in the long term, then DON’T USE JAIL.
As Rockhampton Magistrate Annette Hennessy and Queensland Community Corrections officer Carolyn Willie noted in a 2006 paper:
It is only through real rehabilitation that offenders can move from recidivism to worthwhile members of the community. Whilst prisons were created for punishment, they are not efficient or effective rehabilitators. Re-involvement of indigenous offenders in their community through the care and leadership of Elders and responsible members of the community rather than removing them from the community would seem to have countless more beneficial effects for all concerned. The involvement of the indigenous community in the solutions to the tragedy that is domestic and family violence is essential. Culturally appropriate and effective counselling and treatment for offenders whilst they are suitably punished for their wrongs is the only path to reinstating them in society.
Finally, calls for Judge Bradley to stand down, pending an appeal by the State against her decision, are completely misguided. She has carried out her duties honestly and with integrity – some people may not like the decision but that is no reason to persecute this judge.
We need to work together and support Ab. ppl to use their own legal systems to regulate their own society. I’ve seen many examples of Ab. ppl breaking free only to be defeated by white indifference, ignorance or outright hostility.
Greg, there are statistics and then there is experience. I know country courts & I have seen that they avoid gaoling aboriginal offenders where they gaol whites readily for the same offences. Your view that there is some impetus the other way is wrong.
I wonder, if Mark (below) has asked what reaction he might have if his child was one of the offenders? i wonder if it’s fair to insist on a custodial sentence for the juvenile offenders in the case.
Well and bravely said, Greg. The tragedy surrounding this little girl’s life needs a lot more thought and a lot more honest reflection than we have seen from any of the media so far if the chances of similar events are to be reduced in future.
What a relief to read a sane comment on this case which Judge Bradley grappled with to the best of her ability and her understanding of the environment in which these events occurred.