As stated in an informational document from the Department
of Justice , children sexual abuse cases were often discovered long
after the incidence had happened, whereby victims might have difficulties
to recall the particulars that would meet the requirement of evidence.
The Department of Justice is therefore proposing an amendment to the
criminal laws regarding persistent sexual abuse of children. Similar
to the Australian model, under this new offence, prosecutor only needs
to prove that the accused had committed an unlawful sexual act more
than three times within a specified time period, and it is not necessary
to prove the dates when the unlawful sexual act was committed nor the
exact circumstances in which the unlawful sexual act was committed.
We basically support this proposal. According to our past
experience working with sexually abused children, it may be detrimental
to a child victim if he/she is required to reminisce and articulate
the details, during which he/she may suffer emotional unrest again.
Thus, the proposed new law may help ease the burden, and hence the pain,
children victims have to go through when they recollect the incidences.
In our opinion, the prime goal in these abuse cases should
be to protect the children. The new proposed offence law will not only
help minimize potential harm to children victims, but will also send
a stronger message through sentences according to the severity of a
case to deter potential offenders.
On the other hand, there may be a dilemma that a reduction in the evidence
requirements from a child victim may increase the chance of a wrong
verdict in cases where the current requirement would have resulted reasonable
doubts. Moreover, as it may be easier to bring a case to court, the
accused may experience unnecessary turmoil during investigation or prosecution,
such as public pressure. Although a case may eventually be dismissed,
damages done may be irreversible. In such cases, although the new law
will better protect the interest of children, it may also inevitably
bring unnecessary harms to the accused. We hope that appropriate guidelines
will be provided for the court so the interest of both parties will
be well balanced.
Another concern relates to the change of social workers
working with the child when it has become a court case. Usually the
initial social worker (in some cases he/she is the one who uncovered
the abuse) will not be assigned to follow-up with the child. However,
we learnt from our experience that it is very difficult for the child
to accept and thus trust a new social worker especially during such
crisis when the child victim needs the support and care from people
he or she trusts. Therefore, we would suggest a close communication
between the social workers after change hands. Moreover, interdisciplinary
collaboration (e.g. among social workers, police, legal professional,
and school personnel) will certainly give a better care for the child
victim.
Lastly, we think that the closure of a child abuse case
does not mean an end to the case. The victim may need a long time to
recover from the trauma. Thus, it is very important for the government
to reinforce after-effects supports (e.g. family services and counseling
services) so a more comprehensive care can be provided for children
victims.
