Just to frame the farce that is the Roastbuster’s investigation and conclusion – here are the parts of the Crime Act http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/whole.html#DLM329057 the Roastbusters are proven to have violated – that the police (and some suspects!) themselves acknowledge occurred:
Crimes Act 1961
128A Allowing sexual activity does not amount to consent in some circumstances
4. A person does not consent to sexual activity if the activity occurs while he or she is so affected by alcohol or some other drug that he or she cannot consent or refuse to consent to the activity.
“Police investigating the Roast Busters scandal were shocked to learn of the amount of alcohol consumed by those involved and the group’s poor understanding of consent… the level of drunkenness described to police, including some of the group passing out, was “shocking to hear”. ”
134 Sexual conduct with young person under 16
- (1) Every one who has sexual connection with a young person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.
(2) Every one who attempts to have sexual connection with a young person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.
(3) Every one who does an indecent act on a young person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years.
(4) No person can be convicted of a charge under this section if he or she was married to the young person concerned at the time of the sexual connection or indecent act concerned.
(5) The young person in respect of whom an offence against this section was committed cannot be charged as a party to the offence if the person who committed the offence was of or over the age of 16 years when the offence was committed.
(6) In this section,—
(a) young person means a person under the age of 16 years; and
(b) doing an indecent act on a young person includes indecently assaulting the young person.
Consent was therefore impossible. All suspects were over 16 years of age. Man admits sex with child under 16. Man guilty. But oh no, not in this case – a suspect can and did admit to having sex with 10 (and his mates with 20) girls – but because the girl doesn’t go through with a statement it’s not rape? And if the suspect states they thought they got consent, it therefore was consensual? WHAAAAA????!!!!!! Does that line up with the cold fact of illegal activity above? No way.
The continuous insane defence of being needing to be ‘delicate’ throughout the police report is infuriating. I never thought I’d be this mad at PC-ness and talk of victims rights, but in this case I think how it’s being used to wash over legislation is a crock legally.
Why is it a crock?
Because actual legal reality is, that the police do NOT require the victim’s blessing to continue with an investigation and charge offenders. Particularly in cases involving minors. And as a friend said today – what about murder? Can’t get a statement signed off by a corpse! So what on earth is this defence of not having enough cooperation?
It’s nothing more than an excuse.
Am I saying that the victims shouldn’t have rights? No, absolutely they should. Which is why the police could have (instead of tip-toeing around hoping this would all go away) put significant effort into protecting them THROUGH the process. The fear of identification and bullying is very real – but can be mitigated with the correct support, with empathy, with empowerment – creating trusting relationships with the girls. What about investing in victim support of the ‘you can do this and we’ll be with you, and we will publically pounce on anyone who breaches your privacy’ type instead of so much in ‘this is why you shouldn’t go any further, you really really shouldn’t’ type? None of the alienating, wishy-washy, fear-inducing communication victims say occurred – after they either had the indignity of being ignored and forgotten when they initially reported (in whatever way) sexual assault, or who were silent and scared to speak because they knew they didn’t matter.
There are even more facepalm moments in the Clover Report. At least two persons of interest provided admissible evidence. Means nothing, apparently. And suspects were not pulled in for questioning – they were “invited” and “declined”. This boggles my mind. Since when in serial rape cases were suspects “invited” and the police sigh ‘ah well never mind, too bad’ when they say ‘nah, don’t wanna’ and close the file? This is a joke, right? This is not a justice system I and all of you would like to have faith in.
Videos and photographs of older men having sexual activity with intoxicated underage girls + admittance of it by suspects both on bragging video and to police = proof, arrest and charges. It’s really that simple.
So is the elephant in the room – the police’s lack of initial investigation. Suppose it happened this way – the way it should have. What if they did investigate when girls first notified them – searched the suspects residences and found pictures and video on their phones? Lock ‘em up and throw away the key!!!
28 pages of blah blah blah boils down to utter FAILURE from the system. It’s blindingly obvious from reading the Crimes Act that there is proof of multiple offences here. And it’s also obvious that somehow we are now in a place where our justice system’s answer to rape is basically – well they thought it was ok, so it’s ok.
That’s not ok.
It should not be up to the perpetrator to decide what consent is. It should not be up to youth to decide what consent is. The LAW decides what consent is – and all this decision does is tell young people – who still haven’t finished their brain development and don’t have a mature outlook on the world – that it’s up to them to decide what rape is.
I so desperately want this to be the last time NZ puts up with this. I want this to be the final big swing of the pendulum towards injustice for victims created by a culture of fear of false accusations. It’s gone too far. As I showed above – this system makes a farce of the Crimes Act. It’s a joke, and unfortunately the joke today is on any NZer who has been sexually assaulted – the 99% of survivors who get no justice.
It’s past time to turn the tide on this insanity and get to a system that actually upholds justice.