Should Victims Be The Focus In Court?

Summary

Podcast Summary: Australian True Crime

Episode: Should Victims Be The Focus In Court?
Host: Meshel Laurie
Guest: Sarah Lavis
Date: June 7, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode explores whether the criminal justice system should be more focused on victims, particularly in court proceedings. Host Meshel Laurie interviews Sarah Lavis, a survivor of a violent stranger rape and stalking, who reached out to the show with her powerful, succinct take on victim-centric justice. The conversation spans Sarah’s traumatic experience, the complexities and emotional costs of the court process, sentencing issues, and the implications for both victims and society.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Should Courts Be More Victim-Centric? (00:04–04:49)

• Sarah’s email (read at [00:04]) prompts debate on courtroom focus:
  • Two camps discussed: Victim-centric vs. perpetrator/evidence-centric.
  • Current practice: Rarely are victims’ photos shown; focus remains primarily on the perpetrator and evidence.
• Sarah’s position:
  "As a victim, I wanted the court to be focused on the crime, the perpetrator and the evidence. I did not want the spotlight to be put on emotional aspects." ([01:30])
• She worries about the "perfect victim" trap if courts become too victim-focused:
  • “Don’t we want justice also for the... sex worker that’s addicted to drugs on the street? I want her to get the same justice that I get.” ([02:59])
• Potential dangers:
  • More emotional focus could sway juries or lead to greater scrutiny and victim-blaming.

2. Sarah’s Personal Experience: The Crime (04:49–14:52)

• Details of the crime:
  • At 19, living in Albury, Sarah was stalked by a man she did not know, who ultimately broke into her home using a stolen key and raped and strangled her ([04:57–10:51]).
  • She believed she was being paranoid at the time, but only later learned the extent of the perpetrator’s planning ([05:04–06:43]).
• Offender’s history:
  • He was a repeat offender, undetected for years due to lack of a national DNA database ([10:56–11:33]).
• Long-term impact:
  • Sarah experienced numbness, difficulty processing trauma, and eventually moved to Queensland to try and escape the psychological aftermath ([12:06–16:13]).

3. The Court Process: Confusion & Emotional Labor (16:13–26:42)

• Delay in prosecution (six years due to database issues); eventual prosecution under 12 months after identification ([13:46–16:27]).
• Plea deals and sentencing confusion:
  • Sarah negotiated plea deals remotely, often overwhelmed and unaware of legal technicalities ([17:59–22:39]).
  • Did not understand the implications of "concurrent sentencing" or the significance of aggravated charges.
• Quote:
  • “Why, as a victim, am I negotiating with him? Why is this my decision, my choice?” ([19:01], Sarah)
• Discounts and concurrent sentencing:
  • Offender received 25% sentence reduction for pleading guilty; served sentences concurrently, leading to much less jail time than expected ([20:21–20:56]).
• Emotional toll:
  • “I can’t have them coming back to me. What about this? I can’t keep talking about it. Let’s just get it over and done with, and I won’t go to trial.” ([27:36–28:09], Sarah)
• The system’s inadequacy:
  • “The court process sometimes gives you something to work towards. But don’t focus on it to the point where you’re gonna get really disappointed when it doesn’t go your way.” ([42:45–43:08], Sarah)

4. Structural Issues in the Legal System (23:10–41:05)

• Victim’s confusion and lack of independent legal advice.
  • “Get my own lawyer. Get my own advice. But you don’t know that. I didn’t know that.” ([27:36–27:40], Meshel)
• The prevalence of sentence negotiations, incremental reductions, mitigating factors, and unpredictability frustrate victims, police, and the broader public.
• Quote:
  • “If I get a speeding fine, I can’t walk into the RTA and say, ‘You got me for 40, I’m only going to accept 20 over the limit and I’ll pay you 50%.’” ([24:50], Sarah)
• Re-offending is high (recidivism rates up to 50% within two years; even higher in some places) ([30:57]).

5. Sentencing and Rehabilitation: What Should Change? (29:01–35:23)

• Sarah and Meshel agree sentences for sexual violence are too low and disconnect from the reality of victims’ lifelong trauma ([29:25–31:41]).
• Parole and post-release issues:
  • Many offenders “game” the system to avoid parole conditions ([29:55–30:08]).
  • Parole, though widely criticized, actually provides some monitoring; without it, offenders are released unsupervised ([30:07–30:38]).
• Sarah advocates for tailored rehabilitation programs—especially for violent offenders, reflects on some promising initiatives (e.g., Hard Cuddles in Melbourne) ([32:49–33:25]).
• Quote:
  • “You let a violent offender out, you’ve done your time. Cool. See you later. We’ll see you next time.” ([30:46], Meshel)
• Victims don’t get similar support:
  • “A lot of victims never work again.... But the perpetrator gets all the programs.” ([33:51–34:14], Meshel/Sarah)

6. The Emotional Cost & Lasting Impact on Victims (35:34–44:38)

• Sarah describes losing her 20s to "fight or flight", therapy, and lasting changes in her relationships and life ([35:41–36:08]).
• Many victims never return to full work or life capacity ([36:13–36:21]).
• Sarah’s motivation to share her story:
  • “I think I’m just passionate for other victims...so much of people saying how they don’t understand about sentencing and why they’re getting…such little sentences compared to the crimes they’ve done.” ([37:09], Sarah)
• Advise to victims:
  "Don’t place your worth and your story on the court process." ([43:20], Sarah)
  • Encourages people to report crimes for themselves, even if conviction is unlikely.

7. Rethinking Systemic Flaws & Victim Focus (44:38–end)

• Family and community impact
• Release on bail even for repeat offenders shocks and retraumatizes victims ([44:38–45:00]).
• The system continues to allow dangerous offenders out—serial cases cited ([45:10], Meshel).
• Both guests agree that intensive, early intervention may better identify who can and cannot be rehabilitated ([45:26–45:46]).
• Sarah calls for the justice system to recognize repeated mistakes and enact meaningful reform.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the "Perfect Victim" Trap:
  “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...once you start bringing more victim-focused, then you’re kind of starting to get into that territory that we’re already in.” (Sarah, [02:38])

• On Emotional Toll and Choice:
  “Why, as a victim, am I negotiating with him? Why is this my decision, my choice?” (Sarah, [19:01])

• On Sentencing Frustration:
  “If I get a speeding fine, I can’t walk into the RTA and say, ‘You got me for 40, I’m only going to accept 20 over the limit and I’ll pay you 50%.’ Like how does that work?” (Sarah, [24:50])

• On What’s Actually Lost:
  “Six to seven years seems to me the average [for rape]. But it seems to me entirely inappropriate for the crime and for what it's taken from the victim.” (Meshel, [29:39])

• On Hope for Other Victims:
  “Don’t place your worth and your story on the court process…. Even though it’s 2%, do it for yourself. If it doesn’t go to court, don’t worry about it…. At least it’s there in the system and you’ve done it for yourself and you’ve taken your power back a little bit.” (Sarah, [43:20])

---

Important Timestamps

• Introduction & Debate on Victim-Centric Courts: 00:04–04:49
• Sarah’s Experience & Crime Details: 04:49–14:52
• Court Process & Sentencing: 16:13–26:42
• Legal System Insights & Sentencing Flaws: 23:10–41:05
• Sentencing, Rehabilitation, and Societal Impact: 29:01–35:23
• Life After Trauma & Advice for Victims: 35:34–44:38

---

Tone & Language

The discussion balances raw, personal storytelling with thoughtful critique of the legal system, retaining the lived, conversational tone of both Sarah and Meshel. Sarah’s insights as a survivor bring authenticity and urgency, punctuated frequently by practical advice and hard-won perspectives for other victims.

---

Takeaways

This episode is a persuasive, inside look into the criminal justice system from the lens of a survivor. It raises critical questions about victim treatment, court practices, plea bargaining, sentencing, and the need for system reform, all while providing essential support and advice to those impacted by violent crime.

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. 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 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. But what massive.

[B]

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? Oh, 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. 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 that we're already in.

[A]

Interesting perspective. Cause most of us don't have any experience in the court either. So for most of us, it's an abstract, completely abstract conversation, you know. And so when someone says something, we think, oh, yeah, that sounds right. And then someone says the opposite, oh, yeah, that sounds right. But it takes a lived experience like yours, I think, to really make us think about it from your perspective. Hopefully, yeah.

[B]

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, thank you. 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 break. An end to that key was taken. So it was.

[A]

Where did it go missing from?

[B]

From inside my home.

[A]

Okay. So he's gotten in there somehow first and then found the speaker key.

[B]

And it wasn't till probably, like, years later. And I'd said to my mum, and she said, well, once he'd been convicted, they worked out that he was actually working at the house across the road for quite a few weeks. So that's where it would have come from. But at the time, I had no idea. Had no idea who he was or.

[A]

And it also enabled him to observe you.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

While he was not observed.

[B]

Yeah, exactly.

[A]

He didn't look out of place.

[B]

Yep.

[A]

Where were you living? Where was this?

[B]

In Albury.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

Yep.

[A]

Yep. And you're 19 years old. Probably not long out of home, I guess.

[B]

No, that was the big smoke for me because I grew up on a farm.

[A]

Yep. Yep.

[B]

So I'd moved into town. I had deadlocks on my doors. I thought I was good, but because I kept locking myself out all the time, in the beginning, I'd leave my kitchen window open a tiny bit, and I think that's where he first gained access, took the key. And then after a bit, I was like, oh, I really need to. Once I thought maybe someone had been in there, but still you just think in your head, oh, I'm making it up. I'm being silly.

[A]

Like, well, this is what I believe is the benefit of true crime, of what you and I are doing here right now, is that I know from talking to police and other victims that the pattern you're describing is not uncommon at all. The Peeping Tom turns into gaining access while you're not home, maybe taking some little things of yours or moving things around, and then eventually gaining access when you are home and attacking you. So now I feel like we know when we give more credence to those feelings. You know, if my daughter said, I feel like someone's been in my home, of course I would overreact because of my job.

[B]

Yeah, of course.

[A]

But. But so what made you feel like someone. I'm getting shivers just thinking about feeling like someone's been in my home. What. What made you think that?

[B]

I think because I was young, I didn't have a lot of stuff, and so I'd noticed when things had just been moved slightly, I'd noticed that things had Been moved on the windowsill. So I felt like May had come in, but I kind of just mentioned it to my friends and everyone was like, oh, you know, you have friends come over all the time. Like, people move stuff. So I wonder if maybe looking back, it was more of a vibe as well. Like that feeling that, you know, that, yeah, things aren't right. Yeah.

[A]

Yeah. But everyone's telling you, don't be silly. Basically.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And I'm not having a go at anyone in your life, I think. Oh, no, of course, a lot of us would have, because it sounds impossible. Yeah.

[B]

And I didn't tell my mum, which I think, looking back, maybe if I would have. I'm not saying she's an overreactor, but I'm sure.

[A]

I think most mums would.

[B]

Yeah. I'm sure she would have looked into it a bit more. But, you know, you're just young and you think, oh, well, I'm just being a bit silly here. Yeah.

[A]

When I was at that age, I moved out by myself into Woomba and I kept forgetting to shut a window. And I remember coming home late at night so many times and then just terrifying myself. Cause this window's been open the whole time.

[B]

Yeah. See, we didn't even lock our doors because I lived on the farm.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Like, when I first moved into town, I put my letters in the letterbox for the postman to collect. So when I said to Mum, why is he not taking him? She's like, oh, no, that doesn't happen in town. Like, I just totally came from the farm, so I had no idea.

[A]

Yeah. And so what happened after all this time? Did he break in? I mean. Well, we know he didn't have to break in because he had a key.

[B]

Yeah. 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. 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 say 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 place, 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. Maybe.

[B]

Yeah.

[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. Yep. 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.

[A]

A former policewoman who we spoke to years ago, I'll never forget saying that they check the window sills for DNA because they find that these men, these offenders, often masturbate while watching women through their windows.

[B]

Yeah, okay. Yeah.

[A]

So you're just saying that they found his DNA on women's beds.

[B]

Yeah, that's what he'd been doing. Yeah.

[A]

Again, there's a disturbing pattern to it, what he's done. So for those six or eight years.

[B]

Six.

[A]

Six years. You're trying to recover and not knowing where he is or no.

[B]

So I stayed for a bit and then I ended up going to Queensland. Yeah. Because I kind of felt like. You kind of feel like a deer in heart. Like in headlights, everywhere you go, you're just like, is it him? Is it him? Like, where is he? Is he still watching me? Is. Yeah. Like, obviously, I moved house. I was. The first two days, I was like, no, I'm definitely not moving house. I'M definitely not giving in to this. And then I went to pack my stuff and I was like, yeah, I need to move.

[A]

What sort of support did you have?

[B]

So I've got a pretty good family.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And.

[A]

But I mean, they don't know how to handle this either.

[B]

No.

[A]

I mean, you've been raped in your own home by a stranger.

[B]

I think 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]

Yeah. Surely that's your mind sort of trying to protect you.

[B]

Yeah. And I think my upbringing probably had a bit to do with it too, because, like, I'm brought up by very strong, successful men, but very loving. Like, I'd never even really seen misogyny. I never seen any violence. So it was kind of shocking for me because I hadn't grown up in that and I'd grow up on a farm, so it's not like I see it in the streets like people who live in the city all the time. And. Yeah. So it was really like a hard concept, I think, for my mind to get around.

[A]

So at the six year mark, what happened was 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 gonna happen. I don't need to stress about court now. Like. Yeah, it was kind of a bit of a bombshell.

[A]

And also, had you told anyone up there?

[B]

No.

[A]

Yeah. So you're sort of living a life, like, pretending it never happened sort of thing.

[B]

There's not very many people in my life that I've told, to be honest.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Outside my family that was there at the time.

[A]

So then how did that feel? That, well, great, you've caught him. But now I have to kind of bring it back into my life.

[B]

Yeah, I walked into. So at the time, actually the head boss had just flown in and I walked into his office and I'm like, this has happened. I need to go. Amazing. Booked me a flight, paid for it. Like, my return flight, sent me home straight away. Like, they were so good and supportive, but it was so daunting to actually have to tell someone and then go through the process.

[A]

Yeah. Because it's got to feel like it could become part of your identity.

[B]

Yeah, I think it does for a lot of people.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

I'm just thinking I've met a lot of people over the years, either victims or families of who have moved away, started a new life, not told anyone.

[B]

Yeah. And they told me in the beginning because it was stranger, because of what happened. My chances of working full time and being successful would be really low. So not, not to have expectations because of the trauma. Yeah. But to be like gentle on yourself. So I went back to work. I was determined not to be that person.

[A]

He's such a farm girl

[B]

now. I look back and think, oh my God. Like, you know, to anyone I would say take a lot of time, like. But I think for me I just couldn't process it and I just needed to. And I did that for a long time. Like when I moved to Queensland, I worked a full time job during the week and then I worked split shift on the Minds on the weekend. Just so I, I think I didn't have to think I could just keep going.

[A]

I get that, like, take a lot of time to do what? Sit and think about it.

[B]

Yeah, exactly.

[A]

I don't want to do that.

[B]

Yeah. So then that's why I think everything came crashing down when they rang and said, okay, we've got him, because you hadn't. Then I was like, okay, now I need to process. Yeah.

[A]

So then this is pre Covid. And the reason I say that is because now it feels like our court times are still so much longer because of the backlog from COVID and all that sort of stuff. So how long did it take from that day to get to trial?

[B]

It was definitely under 12 months. Wow. Okay.

[A]

It's now to be two years, isn't it?

[B]

Yeah, yeah. Yep. It wasn't that long. I feel like it might have been like around the eight month mark. So I ended up moving from where I was to the Gold coast because I was so remote and then that way I could fly easily back and forth.

[A]

Yeah. Because what do you have to do during that period of time? It feels like there would be a lot of work essentially for you to do, wouldn't there?

[B]

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 gonna question the legitimacy of it? Yeah, and I didn't wanna throw anything off.

[A]

Cause were you gonna give evidence in court?

[B]

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

[A]

Cause 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 are lesser

[A]

charges, so that's less jail time and all of that stuff. So in the interests 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 also saying to you, oh, because we might lose if we go to court on these higher charges? Like, what's the.

[B]

No, the evidence was there.

[A]

Yeah. So what's the benefit?

[B]

To not go to trial to you

[A]

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

[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 realise 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.

[A]

And aggravated. What does that. It means with violence, essentially doesn't it like an aggravated robbery is with violence.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Again, important.

[B]

Yeah. But they told me so he's got three sexual assault charges. He's got three assault charges. And so I'm adding them up, going, okay, well, that adds up to 20 years anyway, like. 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 on the other end. Like, why, as a victim, am I negotiating with him? Why is this my decision, my choice?

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Like, I don't.

[A]

Your job. I mean, it's not your choice. It's your job that they're enforcing on you.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So how long did he get?

[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. He could very easily have killed you that night.

[B]

Yep.

[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 this is the defence's job. Like, you think the defence is there to defend innocent people, but most of their job is looking at someone and saying, there's so much evidence that trial you're gonna lose, you may as well try and negotiate a lower sentence and plead guilty, and then you'll get less time.

[A]

And how are you feeling about in this process? It's obviously. It must have crossed your mind and other people's minds. Say no, Sarah. Say no. Don't negotiate. Say no. I'm not accepting any of that. Did that enter your head or what made you feel like you couldn't say no?

[B]

I think because I didn't realise the concurrent at the time. Like, I went in there thinking, oh, he's gonna get all these charges, so he's gonna serve all of them one after another. And that's why I said, yes. Because I was so naive. I didn't know. And they'd ring me every lunch, like I'd be crying in the car and then get myself together and have to walk by back into corporate office. And it was really hard. And the police were saying to mum, don't let her take the plea. But mum was saying to me, you need to do what's right for you. And she didn't understand about concurrent either. Like nobody explained to us what the implications would be of taking the plea.

[A]

No. And no doubt she's thinking, I just want this period to end for my child.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

I don't want her to have to take these calls anymore. I just want us all to get on with our lives. And as you said, thinking, well, he's going away for 20 years, years anyway.

[B]

And to have to stand up in front of everybody in court and go through everything in detail while they're cross examining you when they've looked at it, there's so much evidence, so much DNA evidence, physical evidence. Like I thought.

[A]

Do you have a lawyer at this point in the process?

[B]

You have the dpp, right.

[A]

But they're the ones trying to tell you to take a bargain, to let him plead.

[B]

Yeah. And I'm sure if you ask them the questions they'd explain it to you. But I didn't know them.

[A]

No.

[B]

Yeah. I didn't know what questions to ask. And I think that's why, because I keep hearing it time and time again. Why, when people are like, I was surprised about concurrent, I was surprised how low the sentencing was and I think, oh, you're like me like going in thinking, oh, this is how the system works.

[A]

And as I say, most of us don't ever go into court and till it's like the worst day of our lives, right?

[B]

Absolutely.

[A]

And I've started going recently just to observe and I'm shocked every time at just little things, sometimes big things. Just the way it works. It doesn't make sense.

[B]

It doesn't. 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, you're. They're only looking at what you got sentenced for. They're not looking at what you got charged with.

[A]

Well, and also they can't bring up prior convictions or anything until sentencing. Until sentencing.

[B]

Yeah. So they're not looking at the whole picture in the first place because you downgrade it, then you get your 25% off and then if you behave in prison, meaning you keep your hands to yourself, which you know, my three year old nephew can do, then they get out early on parole. If I get a speeding fine, I can't walk into the RTA and say, you got me for 40, I'm only going to accept 20 over the limit and I'll pay you 50%.

[A]

That's a good point.

[B]

Like how does that work?

[A]

Do your deal.

[B]

Yeah, it needs to be more structured, there needs to be less nuance. If you get charged with this, this is what you should go up for. And if you plead guilty then you should be eligible for, for parole, you shouldn't get 25%.

[A]

Well, the police talk about that too. They say, you know, here we are, we do all the work, we put in an excellent brief of evidence. They do and then how are we rewarded with that? We're rewarded with the offender realizing they've got me, I'll plead guilty and then I get a 25% reduction.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

After all the work that's been done

[B]

and really if you look at it in Australia, the bar's pretty high to be charged. Yes, the evidence is pretty good. We're working off a system where fingerprinting was really a new invention when we started and now we have so much evidence. We've got DNA evidence, we've got phone, we've got cars, we've got the watch, cctv, tv everywhere, everywhere. So we have so much more evidence, yet we're still working from a system that really is circumstantial and eyewitness. Based on

[A]

from this young woman who moved to Queensland and tried to get on with her life and put it behind her. It seems to me like the court case and everything really changed that and changed you. I mean, do you talk about it more often? Do you think about it more often? How's it changed your approach to what happened to you?

[B]

I think really when like true crime podcasts and things started kicking off and people started really telling their stories and I started to realise so many people going to court were like me, that I wasn't unique, I wasn't stupid, I wasn't naive. Like you don't know, nobody knows what the court process is going to be like.

[A]

That's a really interesting point. Did you feel like a dumb country girl?

[B]

Yeah, absolutely right. I feel like that sometimes because I'd never been to court before.

[A]

Yeah. But we do have a, from the country, we have a sort of a little self esteem deficit. In there somewhere that, like, when we're in the city, we're just hicks.

[B]

And even being around police.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Like, I think the only interaction we had with police as kids was when my brother got his stolis taken off him in the IRS help, and my bar had to go down and pick him up.

[A]

And everyone knows the police.

[B]

Yeah, yeah, exactly. You know your dad, they come to footy. Yeah, yeah.

[A]

So these very serious characters in their suits and clipboards are intimidating even though they were on your side. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's all very intimidating, isn't it? So now, even from this conversation, I've learned something more, which is that God forbid, if I ever found myself in a similar situation. Get my own lawyer.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Get my own advice.

[B]

Yeah, yeah.

[A]

But you don't know that. I didn't know that.

[B]

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 of the cost, because

[B]

of the time, all of it. And then you look at the court system, and how many times during a day are people there just to adjourn a case?

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Like, how much wasted time when they could just ring and say, okay, you get two adjournments, ring up, book in, that's it. But you have to go before the court, waste the time, put your case forward. Like, there's so much wasted time in a courtroom.

[A]

Yeah. And it can very easily get to the point where offenders know a lot about the system.

[B]

Oh, they know more than us, right? Yeah.

[A]

And so they're not intimidated by it. And they know some little tricks like adjournments and things like that to suit themselves.

[B]

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. And I know that they say there's a lot of mitigating factors. Yeah, I don't believe in mitigating factors.

[A]

Look, I really don't. Especially when it comes to rape. I think we're living still in a fundamentally sexist approach to rape charges and rape sentencing. Six to seven years seems to me the average.

[B]

That's if you're lucky, right?

[A]

Yeah, absolutely. But it seems to me like entirely inappropriate for the crime and for what it's taken from the victim.

[B]

Yep.

[A]

But he must have been out. I'm just trying to do the maths real quick. He must have been out 10 years or something now, or seven years or something.

[B]

He stayed a bit longer because he refused to engage in the program. But a lot of them do that as a tactic so that when they're out, they're out and they're free, they're not on parole, they don't have to report.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

I'm not saying that's the case with him, but.

[A]

No, but again, it's interesting that they know the system, because when Jill Marr died, she was murdered by a man on parole. I and literally tens of thousands of other people in Melbourne marched and complained and said, no more parole. We thought parole was the problem, but what we didn't understand was when someone's on parole, they're monitored. If they just do their time, they just walk out the door and that's it, they're free. Yeah. So parole is actually a positive in a lot of ways.

[B]

It is a positive, definitely.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

But everyone should be in parole, really, when you think about it, like, you let a violent offender out, you've done your time. Cool. See you later. We'll see you next time.

[A]

Yeah. Because we know prison's hardly the rehabilitation center that we once dreamed it could be. So, yeah, you're right. Anyone walking out of prison and for themselves needs help adjusting.

[B]

Yeah. Yeah. Because it's up to 50, like around 50% within 24 months. Recidivism. Yeah. South Australia is low. They're like 30. Northern Territory, 60. Everywhere else falls in the 40 to 50%. That's within two years. That's a really scary statistic.

[A]

It's scary. It's infuriating. It makes the whole exercise seem pointless for everyone. For offenders as well.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

When judges give a serial rapist seven years, I always think, well, okay, well, at the end of that seven Years. He should be allowed to move in next to your daughter.

[B]

Yeah. Yep.

[A]

And just feel. Sit in that for a minute, you, Honour, and think, how does that feel? Feel? Because I feel like that's how women all feel when we hear these. It could be anywhere.

[B]

And this is why I feel a little bit differently about sexual perpetrators. I think violent offenders have more chance at rehabilitation. Me too.

[A]

Me too.

[B]

And that is what we need to focus on. Like, we need to look at these people, we send them to prison, we go, okay, well, you kind of. There's a program you can do that might get you up for parole, especially first time offenders. We need to be looking at them and saying, what do you need holistically that will actually help you? Because there's lots of good programs on the outside. You have to wanna do it, of course. But there's lots of men now that do breath work, meditations, yoga, boxing, like all that real holistic view. And that's, you know, these people, obviously a lot of them have a past, they have a reason behind it. I don't think that's a mitigating factor to me in sentencing, but I think it should be. When you go in, I think you should have a program tailored to you and those mitigating factors should be taken into account.

[A]

Yeah. You're making me think of an organization here in Melbourne called Hard Cuddles, which is that sort of male, very macho, masculine program for men. And then they focus on domestic abusers. And yeah, it's really successful, really successful group of men. They'll have their meditation, they'll have their meetings, but they might have their meetings at the beach, over a coffee. It's targeted at men by other tough guys.

[B]

They're the ones who have to decide what programs. The ones who have been through it.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

There's no point us saying what's going to work. Yeah, I know the government spends a lot of money on programs now they're not working.

[A]

Clearly.

[B]

You can't say at 50% in two years they're working. No, they're not. And that's only what they're going back to prison for. That's not what they're getting charged for.

[A]

Well, and we're still having a woman a week murdered.

[B]

Exactly. And that's not even the children that. Yeah, it's really sad. And I know that people would say to me, either you're being too soft or why should they get all of that access to that if they're the perpetrator? Where the victims were not getting access, you're right.

[A]

There is a lot of complaint about that. There's a lot of victims who'll say, he gets all the counselling, he gets all the programs. And I'm just told, thanks, see you later.

[B]

I know this is really harsh to say, but I would say to anyone, think about the next person that they're going to perpetrate against. Like, who in your family are you willing to put up as someone that could be a victim?

[A]

That's exactly how I feel. Absolutely. Because there's someone, there's one of us walking around who will be his next victim.

[B]

And if you ask anybody who's lost a loved one, like, I know within my family, if they said to us, how much money would you put in these programs to bring your loved one back? Every cent that you have.

[A]

Yeah, of course.

[B]

Every single cent that you have.

[A]

Well, that's the interesting thing too, because you have also been family member of a victim of someone who was killed.

[B]

Yep.

[A]

So in that situation as well, you felt as though you wanted the focus to be on. And I know you come from a very close family. Just from what we've chatted about already, you still wanted the focus in court to be very much on the offender and not on your cousin.

[B]

Yeah. Yep. And absolutely, I want him to be a part of it, like he was the victim. We lost him unnecessarily, but we can't get. Get lost in the perpetrators being accountable for what they've done. That's the thing that we need to focus on. The court needs to be more strict on sentencing. They need to be, this is the crime, this is what you're doing. We need to stop taking so many factors into account.

[A]

But it does feel like, as we've said, their priority is not to go to trial. And so, again, offenders know that.

[B]

Yep.

[A]

How do you think it's changed your life from what it might have been? Are you the same Sarah you think you would have been?

[B]

Hell, no. I definitely lost most of my 20s. I feel like just in that fight or flight, just really just go, go, go. So I didn't have to think about it. Definitely affected my relationships with family, friends, partners. I'm out of that now and I've done a lot of work on myself. A lot of money, a lot of therapy.

[A]

I know. That's the other thing, isn't it? It's like it's expensive to be a victim.

[B]

Yeah, it is. Yep.

[A]

But as you were advised, and luckily it hasn't been your situation. But a lot of victims never work again.

[B]

Yeah. Exactly. Yep.

[A]

Well, not to their capacity.

[B]

Yeah. And that's what we need to take into consideration when we're sentencing people.

[A]

That's what I mean, like six or seven years for everything that was taken from you that night.

[B]

Yeah. It just seems like in this country we don't really take sexual assault that seriously.

[A]

Yeah, I agree.

[B]

We don't understand the full implications of what actually changes in victims lives. Like there is a lot of people that won't go on to have relationships, that won't go on to work, that won't go on to be able to study, especially in a stranger situation.

[A]

Yeah. Which is very rare.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Isn't it? So I guess that's probably more isolating.

[B]

Yeah. Yeah.

[A]

What made you contact us? Did you want to tell your story or you're passionate for other victims listening?

[B]

I think I'm just passionate for other victims. Like when I was hearing like just so much of people saying how they don't understand about sentencing and why they're getting, you know, such little sentences compared to the crimes they've done. And I kind of thought, you know, that's one thing. Like I love true crime podcasts. I listen to a lot of them, but most of them, at the end, if they do say the sentence, they don't kind of explain or go into it. So I feel like everybody's kind of left in that. Like, how did they only get.

[A]

Yeah. A number? I can think of a number of men who are out of jail after 10, 12 years who murdered their wives.

[B]

Yep. And this is the problem. It's letting them negotiate their sentencing 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. And this game of chess, this brinksmanship, this negotiation, I'll admit to this if you take that off the table. Yeah, it is. I mean, it happens before even trials, when it does go to trial. All of this is happening with the pre sentence or pre trial hearings.

[B]

Yeah, exactly. What can be admitted, what isn't set up around a system where we didn't have a lot of evidence. So really, people saying I'm guilty is the best evidence that you had. But now we're not in that situation anymore. Like we've come so far from that. We don't need to get everybody to say I'm guilty just to get a conviction.

[A]

Yeah. I feel like once you've raped somebody, you're out. Yeah. You know, and particularly I don't even know how to say this without offending somebody. But I think in this situation where this perpetrator is a repeat offender, has stalked you and all of these things, that's a lifer to me.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And maybe if he pleads guilty to all of it and spends the next 20 years doing programs and stuff, maybe.

[B]

Yeah. But that's not how it works for sexual assault. No, it just doesn't. You see it over and over again. And the other thing I think about, like that worries me about victims being victim centered is that they're not all remorseful. So some of them, especially like in domestic abuse cases, they feel like it's deserved.

[A]

Yeah, absolutely.

[B]

So that's really hard because I know the families want to put forward like how much they miss their person and they want that person to be really remorseful, but that they're not always remorseful. And that's harder then on the families too.

[A]

And you're right. In a domestic situation, there is going to be a lot of to and fro. There is going to be evidence that. This goes back to what you were saying before about putting the victim on trial. Because there is going to be evidence that, oh, she did this once, she said that once. So it feels like they could actually lessen the impact of the crime.

[B]

Yeah, exactly, exactly. Because that's when they start picking things apart. Like as a victim, I think, why should I be cross examined? I put my evidence in my statement in the beginning and that's what it is.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

But then now we have laws, we're starting to bring in laws against coercive control. And then you go to court and you've got a defender doing the same thing. They're gaslighting you. They're trying to coerce you into saying language that will then go with what they're saying.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

They manipulate your statement to meet what they want it to meet.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And that, that's not fair either. Like if you go in there and you have a statement that should be your statement. You shouldn't have to be as a victim, cross examined. No, as an eyewitness, yes, definitely. You know, as somebody else, fine. But as a victim, we've put our statements down and then we have somebody else that can come in while we're so stressed and so emotional and already under so much pressure trying to trip you up on your facts.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

When you go to court, they agree to. So you agree to a list of facts. So that's everyone's read it and everyone agrees to it. And your statement is in there. So if that's already the agreed upon facts, why in a trial do we then have to be cross examined as victims?

[A]

Yeah. And you're making me think of a documentary I saw recently where a psychologist, Australian psychologist working with a victim, said he has seen defence barristers act very similarly to perpetrators in as much as like bullying. You know, if you are a victim of violent or sexual assault, both that having a man coming at you aggressively can feel very much like you're being attacked again. Can be very.

[B]

So you just back down and say what they want you to say because it's easier.

[A]

You want it to end.

[B]

Yeah, that's a part of like my fear about going to trial was as well. Whereas. Fine, give us a list. Like give victims a list of questions that you have, but they shouldn't be able to bully you and manipulate you in front of a whole entire courtroom and the perpetrator, like, tell me. Yeah, yeah. As if you're not going to break down and just say whatever, just to get it done with.

[A]

Thank you so much for contacting us and for coming and telling us all this stuff. I've been doing this 10 years and you've taught me a lot today. You know, there's so many ins and outs of it, but you need someone who has unfortunately lived through it. I'm so glad you survived, obviously. And you feel. Feels to me like you're thriving. Do you feel like you are now?

[B]

Yeah, definitely now. Yeah. And I think, yeah, just 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 gonna get really disappointed when it doesn't go your way.

[A]

Because it seems to me like you're probably gonna get disappointed.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

I mean, is it 2% of sexual assaults end up in conviction. Yeah. And you had one and still it's so disappointing.

[B]

I know, I know. And just report, like, Even though it's 2%, 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 person, perpetrator does something, at least it's there in the system and you've done it for yourself and you've taken your power back a little bit.

[A]

Sounds like your parents did a good job by the way too, because I just can't imagine, I probably don't want to imagine how I would respond, cope through all of these stages of what you've been through. Clearly it seems to me like they didn't overreact in. And it sounds, I know it sounds like you can't overreact in this situation, but they didn't like make you come back to the farm and never leave again or.

[B]

I feel like they wanted to. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. It was really hard. And there was times obviously where I'd ring mum and just be at my absolute worst and you know, living in Queensland and I know there was times where she would think, am I going to wake up to a daughter or not?

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Like, you know, sometimes it does get that bad. And so it was really hard for them. Hard for my brothers too. Very hard for them. Because when we went to court, the Police told us 100% he won't get out on bail. They let him out on bail.

[A]

And again, that's just dangerous for him. Like that's so irresponsible and dumb in a small community.

[B]

But how can you be let out on bail when you're not a first time offender?

[A]

Listen, I always think about Peter Dupass, who is just one of the worst humans to ever walk the face of the earth.

[B]

Absolutely right.

[A]

Serial rapist and murderer in Melbourne. Constantly let out on bail. He would be on bail for a previous sexual assault. He'd go and sexually assault someone, a stranger, like. And he got six years every time.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So I, I don't know.

[B]

And that's where if we do these really intensive programs in the beginning when they first go in, we're gonna sort out who we can help and who we can't.

[A]

Yeah. Well, do pass committee's first crime at 15, remember.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

I mean, to me, if that one isn't the standard of mistakes were made and how can we not make them again?

[B]

But we do.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Every single day, over and over again, people are let out, let out on bail, on parole. We've got to do something better. We have to. Because how many people have to die before we decide that the system isn't actually working?

[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 or 1-800-Respect. Org. AU Indigenous Australians can contact 13 Yarn on 139276 or 13 yarn.org au.

[B]

The producers of this podcast recognize the traditional owners of the land on which it's recorded. They pay respect to the Aboriginal elders past, present, and those emerging.