Shortcut: Should Victims Be The Focus In Court?

Summary

---

Australian True Crime – Shortcut: Should Victims Be The Focus In Court?

Date: June 7, 2026
Host: Meshel Laurie
Guest: Sarah Lavis

---

Episode Overview

In this emotionally charged episode, Meshel Laurie speaks with Sarah Lavis, a survivor of a stranger rape and strangulation, about her experience in the criminal justice system and the ongoing debate about whether courts should become more victim-centric. Sarah brings a unique, deeply personal perspective, discussing the implications of victim focus in court proceedings, the practical realities of plea deals, and the enduring impact on victims and their families.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Debate: Should Courts Focus More on Victims?

• Meshel opens by referencing ongoing conversations around victim representation versus perpetrator focus in Australian courts, highlighting contrasting opinions from experts and families ([00:04]):
  • Some advocates and families believe courts focus too much on offenders.
  • Suggestions like displaying victim photos in court have been made (supported by ex-homicide detective Charlie Bazzina) to remind all parties who the case is truly about.
  • Judicial figures like Lex Lasry argue strongly against such practices, saying it compromises impartiality.

Sarah’s Perspective ([02:37]):

• Sarah articulates concern that becoming more victim-focused in court risks favoring "the perfect victim," undermining equal justice for all, regardless of background:

  "Are we moving into who's the perfect victim? ... I want [the sex worker addicted to drugs on the street] to get the same justice that I get." ([02:45])

• She warns that putting more emphasis on the victim often opens up their lives for scrutiny and attack by the defense, possibly retraumatizing them.

  "The more we go into victim territory, then the more the defence starts pulling victims apart..." ([03:22])

• Her belief: “The court’s not about me. I don’t want it to be about me. I want it to be about the crime and the perpetrator." ([03:39])

---

2. Sarah’s Story: Surviving Stranger Stalker Assault

Background ([04:29]):

• At 19 in Albury, Sarah was targeted and attacked in her own home after a key went missing; she later realized she was being stalked.
  • "I got up to go to the toilet and he was standing in my doorway. Everyone's nightmare... It turned really violent." ([05:11]–[05:45])

Details of the Assault ([05:56]):

• Sarah describes being violently raped and strangled, suffering head trauma and gaps in memory.
• The perpetrator, assuming she might be dead, returned and threatened her life if she went to the police.

Aftermath and Investigation ([07:00]):

• The attacker was a repeat offender from Victoria, but due to state-based DNA registries, he wasn’t identified until six years later when a national registry linked the crimes.

  "He had been to prison for stalking, breaking in, leaving his DNA on women's beds. ... It wasn’t till they did the national joining that it came up straight away." ([07:03])

---

3. Navigating the Court Process

Long-Delayed Justice ([08:04]):

• Six years after the attack, Sarah is abruptly drawn back into the case upon the perpetrator's identification.

Pressure to Accept Plea Deals ([09:28]):

• Sarah was pressured by prosecutors (DPP) to accept a plea, trading more serious “aggravated” charges for lesser ones, avoiding trial.

  "They'll say, okay, we'll plead guilty, but only to these charges. So everything gets downgraded. ... I didn't understand until then..." ([09:28])

• She describes feeling forced into this process, negotiating with the defense while trying to work and live normally.
• Prosecutors framed taking the plea as emotionally beneficial for her, but Sarah later realized it dramatically reduced the available sentence.

  "In my letter that the DPP sent me, there’s a full sentence that I have highlighted from the DPP saying how beneficial it would be for me emotionally to not go to trial and take this plea." ([10:30])

Concurrent Sentences and Sentencing Realities ([12:05]):

• With the discount for the guilty plea (25%) and concurrent sentencing (serving all sentences at the same time), the perpetrator’s time in prison was far less than expected—just 7 years.

  “So I walked out of there ... What just happened? How did that just happen? That is not what we were prepared for." ([12:15])

• Sarah’s experience highlights widespread confusion among victims and families about the gap between charges and sentencing.

  "What you get charged with is not what you get sentenced with... next time you come up, they're only looking at what you got sentenced for, they're not looking at what you got charged with." ([13:06])

---

4. Broader Reflections on the System

The Complexity of Justice ([13:06]):

• Sarah advocates for greater clarity and consistency in laws and sentencing. She is critical of plea bargaining and the ability of offenders to "pick" charges.

  "There needs to be more succinct laws ... you shouldn't be able to decide yourself as a perpetrator what you want to plead guilty to." ([13:42])

Advice for Other Victims ([13:56]):

• Sarah encourages reporting crimes, even if the outcome seems unsatisfactory. She stresses not to tie personal worth to a court case’s result:

  "Don't place your worth and your story on the court process... Report it anyway, because next time that perpetrator does something, at least it's there in the system and you've done it for yourself." ([14:33])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Sarah on “perfect victim” dangers:

  "I want [the sex worker addicted to drugs on the street] to get the same justice that I get.” ([02:45])

• Sarah on victim scrutiny in court:

  “The more we go into victim territory, the more the defence starts pulling victims apart.” ([03:22])

• On plea deals and emotional pressure:

  "Why, as a victim, am I negotiating with him? Why is this my decision, my choice?" ([10:30])

• On sentencing bewilderment:

  "Me, mum, and dad walked out of there and looked at each other. What just happened?" ([12:15])

• Advice to victims:

  “Don’t place your worth and your story on the court process.” ([14:33])

---

Important Timestamps

• 00:04: Introduction; the victim-vs-offender court debate; Sarah's email
• 02:37: Sarah’s view: pitfalls of a victim-centric courtroom
• 04:29: Sarah recounts the night of the crime
• 07:00: Discovery of the perpetrator six years later due to DNA system changes
• 09:28: The plea deal process and its emotional toll
• 12:05: Reality of sentences and family confusion
• 13:06: Sarah calls for clear legal standards and sentencing
• 13:56: Advice for victims: separating self-worth from court outcomes

---

Conclusion

This episode provides searing, firsthand insight into the intersection of trauma, justice, and systemic complexity in Australian courts—delivered with raw honesty by a survivor. Sarah's voice drives home the need for legal reform and societal understanding and reminds listeners of the real human stories behind legal debates.

---

Transcript

[A]

This is Australian True Crime with Michelle Laurie. Some of our most memorable episodes have come about because listeners sent us their stories. Today's guest did just that. Her name is Sarah Lavis and she woke up one night to the worst nightmare imaginable. She joins us to talk about it. This is Australian True Crime. We acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which this podcast is created, the Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung, People of the Kulin Nation and a warning. This episode of the podcast contains graphic descriptions of sexual violence. Sarah, I wanted to start with reading out the email that you sent us and I'll tell you why, because it's the shortest and most impactful email I think I've ever received. It's like, it's so short and yet when you by the end of it you're like, whoa, that is full on. Hi Michelle. Listening to your recent podcast, I found it interesting about the two camps of the courtroom being more victim centric versus not so we talk about that a lot. Obviously you've noticed you've picked up on that cause a lot of victims, victims families say it's all about the offender. And Charlie Bazzina, our lovely friend, former homicide detective, says he wishes that there were photos of the victims in the court so everyone could remember who it's really about. So that's the sort of. They're the conversations we've been having. Lex Lasry, our former high court judge, says that's ridiculous, should never happen. So yeah, there's some pretty strong views. But you said, I thought I might have a unique perspective as someone who survived a stranger stalker rape and strangulation. As a victim, I wanted the court to be focused on the crime, the perpetrator and the evidence. I, I did not want the spotlight to be put on emotional aspects. I do understand that as a family member that has lost a loved one, they are solely focused on their person and getting justice. I believe having a picture of the victim could increase the emotion of loved ones and possibly be more distracting to the court. I also think as victims and family members, I found the hardest and most confusing part of court to be around guilty pleas and downgraded charges. Yes, agreed. I wish true crime would put some explanation and focus on this to help people understand why sentencing is often so low. And then you add this. I also had a cousin killed in a headbutt incident that left our family shocked and confused about the court process. So as I say, such a short to the point email.

[B]

But what massive, I know a little bit controversial to what a lot of people think about the courtroom being more victim focused. I think I fall into the category of that makes me concerned that then are we moving into who's the perfect victim? Like when you're starting to put photos there and you're starting to, like, I know with your family member, you're always putting forward. They were, you know, in the prime of their life, they were this and that. But then don't we want justice also for the, you know, the sex worker that's addicted to drugs on the street? I want her to get the same justice that I get. And I find sometimes already in media we have that kind of. If you are the perfect victim, if you come from the right family, if you look a certain way, that's my concern. Is that then going to sway the jury? Depending on how you look, how people represent you, what your family says about you, or if you are just the grumpy old man who lives down the street that has no family. I think that once you start bringing more victim focused, then you're kind of starting to get into that territory. Because as a victim, the court's not about me. I don't want it to be about me. I want it to be about the crime and the perpetrator. The more we go into victim territory, then the more the defence starts pulling victims apart, starts going through their life story, and then we as victims then have to defend ourselves more, which is what we've seen over and over again. I think it should be based on the perpetrator, on the crimes that they've committed and everybody should be equal as a victim.

[A]

Yeah, that's a really interesting point. Are you prepared to talk about your. The crime that was committed against you?

[B]

Yeah, of course. Yeah.

[A]

So when you say a stranger stalking, that's rare, but seems like increasingly we're hearing more about it.

[B]

Yeah, it was very rare. They said at the time, I didn't know he was stalking me really, till after the fact. I'd said a few times, I feel like someone had been in my house to my friends, and because I was 19 and young, everyone was like, oh, I think, you know, I think maybe you're just thinking too much into it. And I had a key go missing, my spare key. And so there was no breaking into that key was taken. So it was.

[A]

Where did it go missing from?

[B]

From inside my home.

[A]

Where were you living? Where was this?

[B]

In Albury.

[A]

Okay. Yep, yep.

[B]

So I'd been out and I'd come home. I think it was like 2 o' clock in the morning, my friends had brought me home and then we'd sat up and then they'd left and I went to bed. So it was probably about 3, 3:30 in the morning and I got up to go to the toilet and he was standing in my doorway. Yeah. So everyone's nightmare. And of course, being so naive, I was just like, I think you've got the wrong house. Like, you know, trying to think, oh, he's a bit drunk, like, try and get him out, because I could see the back door was wide open and try. And that's when it turned really violent. Yeah. Obviously he hadn't walked into the wrong home.

[A]

No. Had he been in there, do you think, or like, while your friends and that were there, or had he come in?

[B]

I don't think so. I don't think so. So, yeah, I remember it was like, obviously the rape was pretty violent and then it's a bit. A bit blurry sometimes because I got hit in the head. So, like, I do. I remember getting strangled and, like, waking up. But then he left, but he came back and then when he seen I was still there and had come round, that's when he said, like, if you go to the police, if you tell anyone, I will come back and kill you. So I'm not sure if he thought that I was gone and that's why he came back, or. Yeah, obviously I was going to call the police straight away.

[A]

Yeah. So it's a miracle that he didn't kill you. I mean. Yeah, I thought, oh, maybe he thought you. He had killed you the first time.

[B]

Maybe.

[A]

And that he didn't then come back and finish it.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Is quite miraculous.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

I'm sure now you know lots about the offender who you didn't know at the time.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Had he offended before?

[B]

Yes.

[A]

Yep.

[B]

But he. So I live on the border and he defended in Victoria and this crime was in New South Wales and because this was 20 years ago, we didn't have a national DNA registry, so he wasn't picked up until they joined the registry six years later. So he had been to prison for stalking, breaking in, leaving his DNA on women's beds.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

But because that DNA was in the Victorian system, it wasn't till they did the national joining that then it came up straight away. In the beginning, I was just so numb. Like, even in my counseling sessions, I've got, like, the first year that says. I pretty much said nothing for the whole year. Like, I think I took a really long time to kind of understand what had happened and you know, to get out of that numb phase.

[A]

So at the six year mark, what happened is that when they joined the databases?

[B]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I still remember I was at work, I was working in the mines then and I got a phone call to say, we found him.

[A]

Oh, my God.

[B]

Yeah, it was shocking because I kind of got like, to that point where I was like, well, it's never going to happen. I don't need to stress about court now. Like, yeah, it was kind of a bit of a bombshell. They didn't really ask me to go back over it. And there's a. Like, I did say there was a lot kind of missing in my statement because when you first go in, like, it's very, like bits and pieces. And they even noted that in the statement. But then going back, I was like, well, it's six years later. I don't want to put stuff in now and seem like I'm trying to throw it. And I think that's a big mistake that a lot of us make is you think, oh, if you put it in retrospectively, are they then going to question the legitimacy of it? Yeah, and I didn't want to throw

[A]

anything off because Were you going to give evidence in court?

[B]

So I didn't have to give evidence. Right.

[A]

Because I was just thinking, if, heaven forbid, you get a detail wrong, then they're gonna say, oh, well, her memory, she can't remember it. So everything you've put in retrospectively, they'd want taken out.

[B]

Exactly. And that's how it works. So they come to you and they say, this is what he's been charged with. Aggravated sexual assault. Aggravated assault. And when it falls under aggravated, it encompasses all charges.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

But then they start negotiating with you. And so I'm at work on the phone, the DPP is calling me. He's negotiating on the other end with his lawyer. And they'll say, okay, we'll plead guilty, but only to these charges. So everything gets downgraded. So this is how, like when you look at sentencing and you think, how did they get such a low sentence for this? I didn't understand until then that they will come and say, okay, I'm not going to plead guilty, but I'll plead guilty for these charges, which helps to

[A]

lesser charges, so that's less jail time and all of that stuff. So in the interest of the rest of us, like, I don't want your rapist back out in the streets anywhere near I live or any other woman lives, you know, so then what's the reason for that. Are they. Are they also saying to you, oh, because we might lose if we go to court on these higher charges? Like, what's the evidence?

[B]

No, the evidence was there. Yeah. So what's the benefit to not go

[A]

to trial to you and to the rest of us if he gets these charges?

[B]

And even in my letter that the DPP sent me, there's a full sentence that I have highlighted from the DPP saying how beneficial it would be for me emotionally to not go to trial and take. Yeah, take this plea. And so what I didn't realize is once you take aggravated out of it, then all of a sudden, then there's no one aggravated charge. So then he gets charged with three counts of sexual assault. You serve them all at the same time, concurrently. If it's aggravated, you've got 20 years. Because I didn't understand what concurrent meant. No one explained it to me. And also, like, I'd ring my mum crying and saying, I'm trying to work and I'm negotiating with this asshole on the other end. Like, why, as a victim, am I negotiating with him? Why is this my decision, my choice? And part of me was like, let's just get this over if I don't have to go to trial. Because at first I was like, yep, cool, let's go to trial. And then they kept hounding me and hounding me, and that's when I was like, okay, do it. I can't take this anymore. Like, in the end, I think I just accepted it because I rang mum and said, I can't have them coming back to me. What about this? I can't keep talking about it. Like, let's just do it. Let's just get over and done with and I won't go to trial.

[A]

They're gonna hate me saying this, but how much of that I wonder, I don't know if you have an opinion on this is about not wanting to go to trial because all of it cost, because of the time, all of it.

[B]

So because he pled guilty, he got the 25% discount. And then his longest sentence after the discount was seven years. And so I walked out of there. And I think when I hear families say, I can't understand how they got so little time, I 100% understand because I think me mum and dad walked out of there and looked at each other. What just happened? Like, how did that just happen? That is not what we were prepared for. And I think a lot of people are the same. We don't understand what it actually means when we take that plea.

[A]

Yeah. And as I said, as another woman living in Australia, I don't want that sentence for that man. He didn't hurt me. But he's clearly got a pattern of assault, of rape.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

He could very easily have killed you that night.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

That, you know, that to me is like, it's not even. It's not just about punishment. It's about keeping him away from us.

[B]

And I think that's what people don't understand, why it doesn't make sense. They don't realize what you get charged with is not what you get sentenced with. And so that follows all the way through. So next time you come up, they're only looking at what you got sentenced for, they're not looking at what you got charged with. I think that there needs to be more succinct laws where this is your crime, this is the time that you get, this is your time for parole. There's so much nuance, and every judge can decide what they're going to put in, what they're not going to put in, how long are they going to go, the minimum, the maximum. If what they're charged with is what they have to go before the courts for, you shouldn't be able to decide yourself as a perpetrator what you want to plead guilty to.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

I think I would say to victims that it is a roller coaster, but you can get there in the end. And focusing on the court process sometimes gives you something to work towards. But don't focus on it to the point where you're going to get really disappointed when it doesn't go your way. And just report, like, do it for yourself. If it doesn't go to court, don't worry about it. That's not your truth. If it gets thrown out of court, that's not your truth. Like, don't place your worth and your story on the court process. I think a lot of people probably feel like they're not listened to, they're not believed because they report it and the person's not charged because there's no evidence. But I would say go and report it anyway, because next time that perpetrator does something, at least it's there in the system and you've done it for yourself and you've, you know, taking your power back a little bit.

[A]

If you need support after listening to this podcast, you can call Lifeline on 13, 11, 14 or contact 1-800-Respect on 1-800-737-732.