The Office of the Children’s Advocate has called on the committee considering the Offences Against the Person Act and the Incest (Punishment) Act to remove the need for corroboration of the testimony of children against their perpetrators.

Speaking at last week’s meeting of the committee, Norman Mills, a representative of the Office of the Children’s Advocate, expressed concern that in a number instances involving ‘very young children’ who are violated and for which there was very disturbing medical evidence, the cases do not succeed against the offender because the law requires corroboration for the testimonies of very young children.

“Which offender is going to commit the act in the view of anyone else? It is usually the child alone who knows, and in many cases once the caregiver suspects that something has happened her first reaction is to go and wash the child and any real hard evidence is destroyed,” Mills told the committee.

“We would like to ask the committee whether it would be courageous enough to consider treating the evidence of the child alone in the future,” he added.

Committee Chair and Attorney General Senator A J Nicholson, in concurring, said the concern would have to be addressed.

Taking the point further, Government Senator Donna Scott Mottley said a closer look would have to be taken at “mandatory DNA testing to treat with situations where children are too traumatised to give evidence”. She was supported by Children’s Advocate Mary Clarke who said children were at times being “denied their right to justice because they are young and because they cannot talk for themselves”.

Following on the concern, Acting Commissioner of Police Owen Frater said the matter of DNA testing was a “major concern to the police”.

He said that unless the suspect volunteered to have the test conducted the police did not have the authority to take the evidence.

However, attorney Margarette Macaulay pointed out that in such a situation a court order could be given, mandating that the test be carried out.

In the meantime, committee members expressed concern about the way parole was offered to offenders, and some suggested that individuals be counselled during incarceration.

Head of the Lawyer’s Christian Fellowship Shirley Richards said it was of concern that

oftentimes persons were out on parole after serving for short periods. She said it should be made clear that such individuals would not be eligible for parole unless they had served two- thirds of their sentence.

In fact, she said where children were the object of the abuse, offenders should not be eligible for parole unless they had served two-thirds of their sentences.

Committee member Dr Neil McGill further recommended that psychiatric evaluation be carried out both during and after incarceration, before the granting of parole.

The committee is to conclude its deliberations on both bills this week and formulate a report for presentation to the Lower House.

One major reform to the Offences Against the Person Act will see the inclusion of provisions to make the offence of rape gender-neutral, meaning it could be committed by a male or female against both male and female. Previous proposals to provide a statutory definition of rape and sexual intercourse which would extend ‘rape’ beyond vaginal penetration by a penis has since been thrown out by the committee. Instead, it was agreed that the traditional understanding of rape would be kept and have other sexual acts recognised under other offences elsewhere in the provision.

The amendments to the Incest (Punishment) Act are to among other things extend the list of persons who can be found guilty of the offence to include, among others, aunts and uncles, nephews and nieces and persons in loco parentis relationships (i.e.persons who are not parents but are in parental-type relationships with children).