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