As allegations of sexual misconduct continue to dominate headlines, one Australian journalist is most closely associated with the unstoppable deluge.
You may know that Tracey Spicer has endured death threats after becoming a constant public face for the investigation, but Spicer has also personally and single handedly combed through each query from alleged victims. They now number over 1000 and range from bullying to harassment and abuse.
“These are very personal — at times, horrific — stories, and I take privacy extremely seriously. It’s extremely laborious, but it’s the only way,” Spicer told Crikey.
“This is a long-term, robust investigation, and we take confidentiality and privacy extremely seriously. Soon, we will expand this to other industries and workplaces. This is just the beginning.”
So how does the initial process work?
Spicer is not just a journalist. Since she put out a broad ranging call on social media at the end of 2017 encouraging people to tell her their stories, she has received “countless” enquiries via email, social media and through contacts.
Given that volume, Spicer has devised a system that encompasses support and legal recourse as well as the desire to gather news.
“The first thing I do with each person is to offer to connect them with counselling, legal advice, or union support. Then, we talk about whether they want to lay charges. It’s extremely confronting for women to walk into a police station and talk about such issues. I explain to them that they can ask for a female detective, if this makes it less harrowing,” she said.
Spicer then builds up a rapport with the person and as they become more comfortable they are able to share more about the alleged incidents.
“Finally, I ask them whether they’d like to speak on background, off the record, on the record, or on camera about their experiences. If they agree to this, I do a long pre-interview, including names, dates and locations. Once four or more women have come forward about the one person, that information’s shared between Kate McClymont (Sydney Morning Herald) and Lorna Knowles, Jo Puccini, Alison Branley (ABC) and the rest of the team, to dig deeper. We then do a back-and-forth for many weeks as we each uncover new leads. Meanwhile, I continue this process with the dozens of other messages that come in each day.”
How are stories chosen and investigated for publication?
On the issue of priority, Spicer said that it goes to stories in which the alleged offender is still in the workplace, potentially posing a risk.
Walkely-winner Kate McClymont, speaking to Crikey, said the process is like any other detailed investigation she would work on.
“It’s cross checking time to establish corroborative evidence, speaking to other peoples, its really exactly the same that you would do in any other investigation,” she said.
Spicer said there are now nearly 100 people on the alleged suspect list and she expects more than a dozen big names in the industry to be outed as the investigation rolls on.
Why is Spicer working with Fairfax and the ABC?
While Spicer considers herself to be working in the capacity of a freelance journalist, as well as spearheading the investigation. Crikey corresponded with her at a Fairfax Media email address.
“I know that the ABC and Fairfax have the biggest, most experienced investigative teams in the country. Early in the piece, Lorna — from the ABC’s investigative unit — approached me about sharing some stories. I then approached Fairfax, for which I do freelance work, to enter into its first ever Sydney-based co-production with the ABC. I also asked for support from their legal teams, and received an assurance that their own employees would not be exempt from this investigation. There will be no fear or favour. And they have been absolutely brilliant,” she said.
McClymont, said the process so far had been “truly collaborative” and a great example of combining resources between a freelancer and two large organisations.
However Spicer said the issue was now getting too big for even the ABC and Fairfax teams.
“However, I won’t rule out doing work with other media organisations in the near future as this investigation continues to grow. It’s really getting too big to handle just by ourselves.”
To what extent are the reports dealing with police?
While individuals may be referred to the cops, no police information has filtered back through to the reporters, McClymont said.
“It’s more that we’ve been pointing people in the right direction where the people have asked for help or where the material seems relevant, we’ve suggested who to contact.”
To what extent has Spicer been involved in the major stories to date?
The first Don Burke whistleblower contacted Spicer through Facebook messaging. Spicer then called her, and she connected Spicer with another woman — Louise Langdon, in the US — who mentioned another name, and so on.
“I reckon I spoke to around 45 women and men about Don Burke,” she estimates.
In the case of Craig McLachlan, 7.30 contacted Whelan Browne, who was reluctant to come forward.
“In a way, this investigation was less time-consuming because Christie Whelan Browne and ErikaHeynatz, in particular, knew they wanted to go to the union, lawyers, police and the production company, before telling their stories in the media. Then, when they decided to go on the record, they did this together. As I was on annual leave for two weeks over Christmas, I did much less as the ‘pointy end’ of this investigation, but I’ve been flat out with follow-ups this week, as more women and men come forward. I’ve been spending a lot of time meeting groups of young female actors who are ready to go to the police about several other alleged offenders. They’ve created tremendous support networks — very powerful.”
I sense the scene is being set for the next Royal Commission.
As bad as the situation is, are we not at risk of focusing on the results and consequences rather than the root cause?
It was interesting how often copies of the Female Eunuch in wymin’s groups had the final chapter torn out – the bit about liberation being necessary for men as well.
Trial by media is a process fraught with booby traps and pitfalls.
Where innocence is all too often simply “collateral damage”.
The various mea culpas so far, mostly soz/notsozM/B>, make the Moscow show trials and Red Guard self criticism seem like sound jurisprudence.
Auto-de-fe has something for everyone.
Spicer may not be to everyone’s taste but the process she is stewarding is becoming a society-shifting one. I’m sick of it; sick of men who can’t or won’t control their adolescent urges.
And I’m wondering if the time has now come to seriously address changing the institutional bedrock of how we deal with allegations of sexual crimes. And especially all the ‘trickle down’ implications for we men’s sexual behaviour – I include some of my own less admirable moments past, albeit merely boorish and base rather than criminal, btw (I hope, at least) – that might arise as a result?
Does anyone know of any serious legal examination of reversing the onus of proof/presumption of innocence in our judicial system when it comes to one-on-one sexual crime accusations? Or even establishing an entirely seperate Court, with separate witness and evidentiary protocols, allowable histories, etc to hear such cases?
As things stand we start our examination of alleged sexual crimes from the assumption that the accused is innocent of it…which unavoidably demands that we start from the point of assuming that the alleged victim is, at best, mistaken in their accusation, or at worst, outright lying. When so often an outcome turns upon a ‘he said/he said’ character assessment by a judge/jury, with no other ungainsayable avenue ‘into’ an unwitnessed event (sexual crime so often involving intimacy/privacy); and when the ‘reasonable doubt’ factor so overwhelmingly defaults uncertain jurists towards not convicting an accused (even if they broadly believe the accuser)…then…why would it be so much more ruinously ‘unjust’ in overall outcome terms to reverse the presumptive start-point?
I would argue that in the (vanishingly rare) truly vexatious accusations that would actually get all the way to court, proving one’s innocence ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ – especially if evidentiary protocols allowed a far wider array of circumstantial/behavioural histories (of both accused and accuser) to be presented – would be far easier for an unjustly accused than would the current abysmally net-unjust reverse (clearly so, given the many women who don’t even report sexual crimes to police, let alone go through to whole Court ordeal).
To me the trickle-down effect upon the sexual behaviour of all us men generally but especially grubs like (by his own written admission) a Craig McLachlan (see the Molly Meldrum boasts, in his own odious telling of stilettos up the bum, and unwanted dick-waving) would be truly paradigm-shifting, in just the way women like Spicer/#MeToo et al are increasingly demanding would be immense; if, I mean, they knew they might end up in court having to actively ‘disprove’ their accused’s accusation, rather than simply relying on the loaded ‘default’ of their presumed innocence. If that weight of looming institutional bias made us men err on the side of sexual prudence, continence and highly-attuned empathy for the other more generally, rather than alleged victims having to swim against it (to add gross procedural and civic insult to criminal outrage)…why would this be so bad? Why would that scare us (mostly) men, so much?
I’d be really keen to read a piece by someone like a Michael Bradley on this, Crikey, and to hear other Crikey commentators’ views, especially blokes. We make the assumption that the presumption of innocence is the ‘least worst’ start point to net justice being done. But…is it, in sexual crimes? Is it, really? I just cannot believe, from the accumulating daily tsunami of evidence – even fifty years on from second wave feminism – that it is. Is it really what the vast majority of men want, too? Does it really reflect our relationship with the women in our daily lives? Not a chance. If my niece, my mum, my sister…comes to me and says: that guy did ‘this’ to me…my start point is…to believe them. Not to presume they’ve got it wrong, or that they’re lying. It’s to…believe them. Why do our Court’s not do the same? The ordeal women have to get through just to get a damned charge laid is emotionally gruelling enough anyway; no-one does it lightly. Be stupidly? Maybe, but the effort required to get the Crown on board in a truly vexatious case must surely be Herculean – more so, I would reckon, if that reversal of presumption awaited prosecutors.
It’s a valid query, legal experts, at least. Why can’t our Courts, too, start from where we each of us do, in our relationships with the women we know (or for that matter, any men who seek legal recourse for sexual assaults, abuses): believe them, as a matter of start-point presumption? Take at face value their ‘he said/she said’ telling of events, and work through exactly the same process we do now – just backwards? By going to the supposed perpetrator (any accused bully, really), and saying: if this isn’t true – and we’re satisfied there’s a Court-worthy case here – then it’s now up to you to show the Court ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that it isn’t, not your alleging victim, to show that it is.
Why does that scare us (men espesh) so much? Why is it so wrong, any more potentially ‘unjust’, than our treatment of alleged sexual crimes now?
‘Be stupidly’ is supposed to be ‘But ’recklessly, angrily, vindictively’? Spellcheck…go figure.
Jack,
I think your suggestion is so simple in its common sense articulation to be ingenious and innovative beyond all practical application (and will).
Someone else thought the reverse onus of proof was a good idea when they were legislating the Fair Work Act 2007……problem was they found other ways to shut me down before we ever got to the reverse onus bit (I think being a woman of no means was the trick utilised in this case).
A model could be the Code Napolean accusatorial system, with an examining magistrate whose job is ascertain the truth of the matter, not between the histrionics of showboating barristers.
Evan Whitton wrote enthusiastically, if unconvincingly for this little wood duck, about such a need for years.
…duhhh, muscle memory, I meant “inquisitorial“, not accusatorial which is the current system of the Anglophone world.
Jesus, Jack, you’re seriously arguing that the jurisprudential standard be reversed to provide the presumption of guilt? Shall we simply dispense with the last thousand years of English Common Law?
The divinity of the individual is the fundamental building block upon which Western Civilization was founded. Never mind! We can dispense with that now because a small proportion of men are sexual predators.
You’d best get writing to the UN to have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights amended.
Dismal!
Don’t be hysterical, JQ. The hallowed ‘English Common Law’ changes all the time. Not so long ago it reckoned rape in marriage didn’t even exist, and wouldn’t allow women to even serve on juries. Much less as officials. Not much ‘dismal’ as juvenile mate.
All I am proposing is a reversal of the start-point in sexual criminal cases. If you’re not guilty you have every opportunity to prove it thus, as you do now. What you won’t have is the default escape clause of it being enough for your counsel to fling sufficient spurious dust in a jury/judge’s eyes to cast ‘reasonable doubt’.
Which is what alleged victims have to contend with on a core-definitive operational basis.
What’s so scary about putting the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ onus on the accused camp rather the accuser camp, JQ, when the he/she said thing might be all a case turns upon upon?
Talk me through it, mate. Pace out the relative net injustice calculus. Propose alternatives.
Because clearly, the status quo is. Just. Not. Acceptable. Chrs.
No, no and no. Trouble is if you go down this road for simple groping in he said, she said situations and automatically assume guilt you are asking for it to be done in other cases and that is 100% bullshit 100% of the time.
Every person is innocent unless proved guilty is the only standard to stand by.
With respect Marilyn I think a better standard would be “is it the truth” rather than “is the case proven” in all cases that reach court. This would mean that past behaviour would be available to the judge and jury, rather than the past behaviour of the person accusing another. Past behaviour is usually a good way to predict future behaviour, whether it be sexual harassment/assault or motor theft or any other crime.
Peter Kennedy, Vice-President Royal College of Psychiatrists, commenting on the Kerr Haslam Inquiry into sexual abuse, said the report recognises that rumour and gossip can be grossly misleading (perhaps 2% are false). However, when rumour, gossip and withdrawn or unsubstantiated allegations refer to the same person repeatedly, the balance of probability grows that patients are being harmed.
Although the standard of proof in these cases may be low, the trends become very clear, with consequently fewer flawed outcomes.
All you’re proposing is a fundamental reversal of the key tenet of individual human rights, that the individual has the right to the presumption of innocence.
It’s clear that you’ve thought about the issue deeply, however don’t be so certain that changing something as complex and deeply rooted as the presumption of innocence would have nothing but benign results. It’s my understanding as a student of history that it’s much easier to make things worse than it is to make things better.
I’m not proposing alternatives because it is you who has declared the status quo unacceptable. If an accusation has been made, with the potential consequences of that accusation being the loss of liberty of the accused, then the burden of proof must fall on the accuser, as it does now.
I do not believe that our society is rife with sexual assault, and I also believe that the current definition of sexual harassment is unclearly defined. The recent high-profile cases are ugly reading, and it seems likely the accusers will be rightly vindicated, however a radical change to the structure of our laws is not the appropriate response.
It’s not the accuser upon whom the ‘burden of proof’ lies in a criminal case, JQ – it’s the Crown, and the Crown is governed by a set of Court rules and protocols that are historically dynamic, it’s own responsibility to observe, and neither does not nor need to pivot at all on any one or other of what you call a ‘universal’ bedrock principal, like ‘the presumption of innocence’.
The way a Court functions is determined by itself. In a civil court there is no ‘accused’ nor any ‘presumption of innocence’. In the Family Court no-one is ‘on trial’. Children’s ‘Courts’ aren’t even courts at all anymore.
I am suggesting that the interests of net greater justice in sexual crimes cases would be better served by a separate Court, with likewise its own tailored protocols, procedures, and, I see no reason why not, a reversal of the general presumption of doubt. This need have zero impact on anything other than the capacity of that court to extend greater net justice to sexual criminal cases, where so often the guys of the matter comes down to he said/she said…and thus, necessarily defaults with grotesque disproportion to benefit-of-doubt to the accused.
And no matter we pretend otherwise: that amounts to institutional presumption AGAINST the alleged, and all too often highly likely in truth, victim.
We have to do better. Perhaps AR’s frog model might work. Maybe the Danish one wot dunfervAssange…I don’t know. Would love to hear expert options. Yours too.
Chrs man.
that the accused’s Defence is simply not. The Crown cannot seek to discredit a defendant’s testimony by the introduction of information
I wrote a paper on the ‘Misuse of power’ some time ago, which you may find interesting. The first version was as a submission to the Senate inquiry into ‘Violence, abuse and neglect of people with a disability’, in 2015. Web address below.
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwj_ztzq1dHYAhWFV7wKHSnXDAoQFggrMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aph.gov.au%2FDocumentStore.ashx%3Fid%3Dc5a05261-6f8e-445c-b5e3-83c4285bc959%26subId%3D353097&usg=AOvVaw3km-NouUR5A4JFGRssagiG
The SMH printed this letter I wrote. I would love someone better at media than I am to take the idea further.
Dear Editor
Tracey Spicer has done a brilliant job lifting the rocks in Don Burke’s garden and will move on to other pests. But any female over the age of twelve will tell you that unwanted sexual attention is very hard to avoid. And from my long observation some women are better equipped and better placed to deal with it than others are.
So, Tracey, we now need another campaign, perhaps #malepestcontrol, so that women can share their experiences and survival mechanisms and ways in which they turned the tables.
We need a response to all this horror which is positive and useful even though it is too late to use weedkiller on Don Burke.
Jan Aitkin
Sorry, horror? Horror is women and kids being traded to rot on Nauru, men being murdered on Manus, babies being jailed in Australia, aboriginal people being more likely to die in prison than get old, the stolen generations still suffering. A couple of pathetic gropers is not horror, it’s just a couple of pathetic old gropers.
All of this country tonight and every night women will be bashed, abused, tortured, tormented, attacked and even killed in their own homes, children will be raped by family members with no recourse to justice at all.
Bette Davis had the answer to lechery over 60 years ago, she would haul herself to her whole 5’2″ and tell the arseholes to go and fuck themselves.
Let’s not over egg the pudding here, no charges have been laid against anyone, there have been no trials and there has been so suggestion of actual crimes.