Speaker 1: It's incredibly rare to see reform of this magnitude. You know,
Speaker 1: Australia's legal system, it doesn't change often, but when it does,
Speaker 1: it's because our understanding of harm is shifted.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: For years, survivors of some of the worst crimes imaginable
Speaker 3: have been put through hell. Their perpetrators have been allowed
Speaker 3: to use glowing character references in court in an effort
Speaker 3: to have their sentences reduced.
Speaker 1: If you sexually be as a child, you are not
Speaker 1: of good character. If you are violent towards your partner,
Speaker 1: you are not of good character.
Speaker 3: But today that's set to change as New South Wales
Speaker 3: introduces new laws scrapping character references for all criminal sentencing.
Speaker 3: This comes after years of campaigning from sexual abuse survivors
Speaker 3: like Harrison James.
Speaker 1: And these aren't just legal twigs. They change how we
Speaker 1: talk about power. They change how we talk about harm
Speaker 1: and accountability as a society.
Speaker 3: I'm Nicole Johnston and you're listening to seven AM today.
Speaker 3: Your reference ain't relevant. Co founder Harrison James on what
Speaker 3: these changes mean for victims and if the rest of
Speaker 3: the country will catch up. It's Wednesday, February four and
Speaker 3: just a warning that today's episode includes discussion of sexual abuse. So, Harrison,
Speaker 3: if we could go back a little bit, can you
Speaker 3: describe for us what a character reference is in court
Speaker 3: and how the system has been working up until now.
Speaker 1: In the court process, if we split it into two parts,
Speaker 1: we have the trial and we have sentencing. So an
Speaker 1: accused offender will go through the trial, all the facts
Speaker 1: will be established, it will result in the conviction guilty
Speaker 1: or not guilty. If they're guilty, they'll come back to
Speaker 1: court after for the second half of that trial process,
Speaker 1: and that's called sentencing. And that's where the convicted offenders, friends, family,
Speaker 1: and colleagues can write these, you know, bias letters saying
Speaker 1: that that, oh, you know, he might have been doing this,
Speaker 1: but he's actually a good bloke, or he's a pillar
Speaker 1: of the community, or he's a dedicated and loving father.
Speaker 1: And for a victim to have to sit in that
Speaker 1: courtroom after going through a rigorous trial and thinking they've
Speaker 1: got justice after a conviction, it's absolutely devastating and it's gaslighting,
Speaker 1: you know, for a victim to have to sit there
Speaker 1: and listen to that, and it's incredibly to humanizing. And
Speaker 1: that's why we were inspired to make this change and
Speaker 1: push for it.
Speaker 4: In my example, I.
Speaker 1: Was sexually assaulted by my stepmother every day for three
Speaker 1: years between the ages of thirteen to sixteen. She would
Speaker 1: still be well within her right to go to court
Speaker 1: and ask for a good character references and in turn
Speaker 1: get a lighter sentence. So at the Your Reference Relevant campaign,
Speaker 1: our original ask was to abolish good character references for
Speaker 1: all convicted child sex offenders because we understand that good
Speaker 1: character is actually part of the crime. Offenders need to
Speaker 1: you to their good character to gurum not just the victim,
Speaker 1: but everyone around that victim, the support network around that
Speaker 1: victim into thinking that they're a safe from a reliable
Speaker 1: person to leave a child in the care of right
Speaker 1: and that's how they exploit that child for sexual abuse.
Speaker 1: But the New South Wales government has gone one step
Speaker 1: further and abolished it for all references because after three
Speaker 1: years of research, the New South Wales Sentencing Council has
Speaker 1: found that they're arbitrary and not effective at all.
Speaker 3: So why did the New South Wales government decide to
Speaker 3: do that?
Speaker 1: So the reason the New South Wales government has done
Speaker 1: that is because they understand the demographic of who gets
Speaker 1: these good character references right, And if we look at
Speaker 1: the research from the University of New South Wales and
Speaker 1: doctor Michael Salter's research into perpetrators and offending behaviors that
Speaker 1: child sexually specifically, these offenders, more often than not, they're married,
Speaker 1: they have children, they have phenomenal jobs, they are in
Speaker 1: positions of influence. More broadly, if a middle aged white
Speaker 1: man who has a great job, is married and have
Speaker 1: kids and lives in an affluent area, he could probably
Speaker 1: go down to the surf club, he could reach out
Speaker 1: to his local politicians, he could get all these people
Speaker 1: of influence in the community to write a good character
Speaker 1: reference for him. But if we think about someone in
Speaker 1: a low as socioeconomic situation, for example, they might not
Speaker 1: have the same access to those good character references. So
Speaker 1: what it's trying to do is even out the playing
Speaker 1: field before they even enter a courtroom, and the focus
Speaker 1: is purely on the harm of the crime, on the
Speaker 1: harm that was caused of the crime, and the facts
Speaker 1: of the crime. Character evidence is still permissible, So they're
Speaker 1: not references, they're not letters, they're character evidence. It's a
Speaker 1: very different thing. And also prospects of rehabilitation are still permissible.
Speaker 1: During sentencing. So these are totally objective factors that are
Speaker 1: important for the judges to weigh up and get a
Speaker 1: full picture of how the crime played out. But good
Speaker 1: character references for you to have family and friends and
Speaker 1: relatives and colleagues to write these very biased letters, it's
Speaker 1: not objective. It's totally subjective, and that's why the New
Speaker 1: Southwest government has taken the position that they have to
Speaker 1: go further.
Speaker 3: Could you give us some specific examples of some of
Speaker 3: the most disturbing cases of character references that have been
Speaker 3: used in sentencing, of course.
Speaker 1: And I've actually sat in on a few court cases
Speaker 1: where I've supported the victims and I can speak firsthand.
Speaker 1: One thing that springs to mind is the convicted child
Speaker 1: sex offender Paul Frost.
Speaker 2: A former Sydney swimming coach who preyed on his students,
Speaker 2: has been jailed for thirty two years. Paul Frost is
Speaker 2: the son of an Olympic level swimming trainer. A jarge
Speaker 2: today saying he used that fact to sexually abuse eleven children, and.
Speaker 1: During sentencing he had character references that described him as
Speaker 1: a champion of young people. I mean those adult survivors
Speaker 1: and their families. Had to sit there in court sentencing
Speaker 1: and here him lauded as a champion of young people.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just it's offensive, and it became one
Speaker 1: of the central catalysts for the campaign. Another example that
Speaker 1: I can think of is is George Pell.
Speaker 2: Cardinal George Pell, once considered one of the Pope's trusted lieutenants,
Speaker 2: is now facing time in prison.
Speaker 1: And he received good character references from John Howard and
Speaker 1: Tony Abbott, and those references emphasized his stand in any
Speaker 1: service and his reputation. But you know, obviously he was
Speaker 1: later acquitted of those crimes, but at the time good
Speaker 1: character was given to him, even with the most serious allegations,
Speaker 1: and people would rather go to his defense rather than
Speaker 1: have to hear what the victims and survivors allegedly went through.
Speaker 1: One of the reasons that so many victims never report
Speaker 1: is fear. It's the fear of not being believed, it's
Speaker 1: the fear of being diminished, it's the fear of watching
Speaker 1: their offender being praised in And this reform helps restore
Speaker 1: that confidence in victims and survivors that the justice system
Speaker 1: will understand the harm that was caused to them. And
Speaker 1: this matters if we want people to.
Speaker 3: Comforward coming up as the country watches on, will the
Speaker 3: rest of Australia follow Harrison? This legal reform is great
Speaker 3: news for survivors of abuse in New South Wales, but
Speaker 3: what about the rest of the country. Could you explain
Speaker 3: how the other states stand on character references for criminals
Speaker 3: break it down for us.
Speaker 1: Well, the system that's at play now is how it's
Speaker 1: always been. You know, there's character references are permissible in
Speaker 1: the other states and territories apart from New South Wales.
Speaker 1: But in the Australian Capital Territory, we were working with
Speaker 1: their Attorney General and they adopted our original proposal of
Speaker 1: totally abolishing good character references for convicted child sex offenders.
Speaker 1: So that legislation has been introduced in the Australian Capital
Speaker 1: Territory and we're very very excited about that. But Queensland
Speaker 1: only decided to limit the use of good character references,
Speaker 1: so defense lawyers and perpetrators of this crime can argue
Speaker 1: that good character references become commissible in sentencing because the
Speaker 1: Queensland government only limited them, they didn't fully abolish them.
Speaker 3: So all of the states have different laws, which means
Speaker 3: it's not as simple as them being able to just
Speaker 3: copy and paste the New South Wales reform. How convinced
Speaker 3: are you that they will follow suit?
Speaker 1: Oh, I'm incredibly convinced that they will follow suit because
Speaker 1: we've developed personal relationships with most attorney generals apart from
Speaker 1: the Northern Territory and Victoria, and I am incredibly confident
Speaker 1: that we will see this come to fruition because it's
Speaker 1: the right thing to do and it's a common sense
Speaker 1: it's not controversial at all. It's a common sense approach
Speaker 1: to justice and it's a fair approach to justice. This
Speaker 1: is good law.
Speaker 3: There has been some limited criticism of the reform from
Speaker 3: some lawyers who say that it makes the system less,
Speaker 3: just that it's taking away some rights of the defendants.
Speaker 3: What do you say to that.
Speaker 1: Well, look, the New South Wales Sensing Council is a
Speaker 1: group of sixteen members. These are high court judges, these
Speaker 1: are defense lawyers, these are some of the most profound
Speaker 1: legal scholars and minds that the state and country has
Speaker 1: to offer. And out of those sixteen members only two dissented.
Speaker 1: This was a majority. It was an overwhelming majority of
Speaker 1: lawyers and legal minds that back this reform, and every
Speaker 1: major reform that we see has faced resistance from parts
Speaker 1: of the legal profession. It's a system and an institution
Speaker 1: that is entrenched in tradition, and that happened with some
Speaker 1: of the examples I listed before. It happened with no
Speaker 1: fault divorce, it happened with marital rape that was criminalized,
Speaker 1: it happened with affirmative consent. And history has shown that
Speaker 1: discomfort often precedes progress. And after years of review and
Speaker 1: scrutiny and debate, this reform prevailed because it's evidence based
Speaker 1: and it's long overdue. So that's what I would say
Speaker 1: to the criticism that an overwhelming majority agreed with this
Speaker 1: reform and it was done after years of research.
Speaker 3: Harrison, you're going to be in Parliament today when these
Speaker 3: new laws are introduced. How emotional will that moment be
Speaker 3: for you as a campaigner and as a survivor yourself?
Speaker 1: Oh, to be incredibly emotional. I mean, it's just the
Speaker 1: it's the back end of all this hard work and
Speaker 1: seeing it come to fruition truly as a dream come true.
Speaker 1: It's wonderful and it makes me proud of what my
Speaker 1: campaign partner, Jared and I have achieved.
Speaker 4: It makes me proud of what we've built.
Speaker 1: And you know, we did this to ensure that other
Speaker 1: victim survivors in the community could see that they can
Speaker 1: transform their pain into purpose and that's what we did.
Speaker 1: We had this painful experience and we said, no, we
Speaker 1: want to ensure that the next kid doesn't experience what
Speaker 1: we did. And we wanted to pay it forward and
Speaker 1: do the right and do the right thing. And you
Speaker 1: know that's not every victim survivor has to do that.
Speaker 1: It's not a right of passage to be seen as
Speaker 1: worthy or validated or for your pain to be seen.
Speaker 1: But it's how we chose to heal. It's how I
Speaker 1: chose to heal. And to see it all come to
Speaker 1: a head in New South Wales Parliament is just like
Speaker 1: it just blows my mind. It's not even real, but
Speaker 1: it is happening and I'm very excited to see it.
Speaker 3: Harrison, thank you so much for sharing your story with us.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Nicole, I appreciate it.
Speaker 3: Also in the news, the Reserve Bank has lifted interest
Speaker 3: rates for the first time since twenty twenty three. The
Speaker 3: official cash rate will rise by a quarter of a
Speaker 3: percent to three point eighty five percent. The move, triggered
Speaker 3: by his surprise rise in inflation figures, will see mortgage
Speaker 3: repayments jump by around one hundred dollars for a six
Speaker 3: hundred thousand dollars home loan, and the New South Wales
Speaker 3: Police Commissioner has extended a ban on protests for the
Speaker 3: fourth time since the Bondai massacre. He says planned rallies
Speaker 3: protesting a visit by Israeli President Isaac Herzog or a
Speaker 3: factor in the decision. Authorities are preparing for nationwide protests
Speaker 3: against Hertzog on Monday. I'm Nicole Johnston. This is seven am.
Speaker 3: I'll be back tomorrow