Why the media is unable to picture or name three of the four teenage males accused of gang raping a girl in southwest Sydney

News.com.au

5 hours ago

When news broke on Wednesday that four teenagers had been charged following an alleged six hour gang-rape of a 17-year-old girl in western Sydney late last year, social media lit up with two questions: who on earth were these boys and why were their identities being protected by media and shielded from the public?
So far we know that police claim on December 15, a 16-year-old boy, unknown to the girl, approached her in a shopping centre car park in Liverpool.
The girl reluctantly let him in her car to 'sit and chat' before he allegedly attacked her.
According to NSW police, the 16-year-old filmed certain parts of the incident which he broadcast on a video call to his mates.
She then drove him to Wheat park, believing it to be her best chance of him leaving. But once there, two other teens got in. A fourth man also joined who took control of the car, and police claim that the group then took turns raping the girl, sometimes two at once.
When they finally left, at around 11.30pm, the 'distraught' girl called a friend who took her to Liverpool police station.
Five days later on December 20, the 14 and 16-year-old boys were charged with multiple offenses and this week, an 18-year-old and 19-year-old were also arrested and charged.
So far, Adam Abdul-Hamid, the 19-year-old, is the only accused who has been named by the media.
And all four co-accused have yet to have their day in court and are entitled to the presumption of innocence.
The case, however, highlights an issue that many readers often find confounding: regardless of any eventual verdict, it is more likely than not that we will never be able to report the other three boys' names to you.
This is because in New South Wales, the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 prohibits the publication or broadcasting of the names of people under 18 involved in criminal proceedings.
This is to protect their long term reputation from the potential stigma associated with criminal charges, and to aid in their re-entry into society and rehabilitation in the event of a guilty verdict.
The idea is that people under 18 deserve a second chance and should not have their reputations permanently damaged due to mistakes made in 'childhood'.
And for petty, non-violent crimes, this may make sense.
But when it comes to allegations of gang-rape, is the law keeping up with community expectations?
And is the principle of open-justice being served?
Theoretically, in NSW a sentencing judge can make an order to remove the suppression gag on their names at this point of sentencing, but this almost never happens.
But at what price?
I recently interviewed a young woman in Sydney who was sexually assaulted by a teenage boy. She wasn't alone. In total he was charged with sexually assaulting up to six teen girls. He was convicted of a number of those offenses but since they all happened while he was under 18, his name cannot be published in relation to those convictions.
Worse still, once he turned 18, he was charged again with another offense, but this time was found not guilty due to a hung jury. To Google his name now, you would conclude he has no criminal record as the one and only result suggests that he was charged but found not guilty of the adult offense. It's a result which could easily mislead any young woman who now crosses paths with him.
Another perverse outcome of this law is that journalists often have to suppress critical information in gang-rape cases of how boys or men are linked.
While I make no comment about the case announced yesterday, it's not uncommon, for example, in gang-rape cases for the accused to be linked through family, a sporting team, or some other club or association.
However if one or more of the alleged offenders are under 18, journalists must suppress not only their name, but also their identity and this will often extend to other personal information, including their family, school, sporting teams and so on.
The result is that journalists are sometimes forced to leave out critical information which helps give context and can inform violence prevention research - including how the teen boys know each other.
Most perverse of all though is how this law can impact complainants and victims.
Rightly or wrongly, they are left with the perception that the accused's right to privacy and reputation is more important than their own and , but at times this law can directly silence victims.
I'll never forget meeting a young woman who was raped at age five by her 17-year-old brother. He was found guilty and served jail time. She wanted to reveal her name and tell her story as part of her healing. But because they share a surname, and his identity is automatically suppressed due to his age at the time of the offending, her identity is forcibly kept secret by the law too, meaning she cannot ever share her name and full story, absent a specialised court exemption.
These are just some of the perverse outcomes of this law aimed at protecting young people.
But finally, it's worth remembering that aside from upholding the principles of open-justice, there are other public interest and public safety arguments for naming convicted offenders. Specifically, when media do publish the names of men and women who have been charged with, or found guilty of sexual violence, this can empower other victims in the community to come forward and report: both in general and specifically in relation to that named offender.
The reason for this is that many victims of sexual assault choose not to report at first, especially if they believe they are 'the only one'.
Isolation, shame, self-blame, fear of not being believed, and fear of reprisals are just some of the reasons many stay silent.
But when a victim learns their offender has been charged with another offense this can empower them to take steps to report: not only is there strength and safety in numbers, but survivors also instinctively understand that an offender who harms two people is capable of harming many more.
It takes enormous strength and courage to report a sexual crime. I hope as a community we know how to stand with those who do.