Rape Immunity ‘ludicrous’ (Press, 2 March 1984)

On 2 March 1984, representatives from the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges presented their views to a Parliamentary select committee regarding proposed changes in the Rape Law Reform Bill. They asserted that maintaining spousal immunity from rape perpetuates the denial that women could be raped by their partners. The bill suggested that a married man could not be charged with raping his wife unless they were living apart. The collective argued that this could lead to an absurd scenario where a married woman could be prosecuted for raping her husband, while he remained unaccountable for his actions. In their submission, the collective referenced a survey from September 1982, which indicated that nearly 50 percent of women who sought refuge identified their domestic situations as involving rape or sexual violence. They also highlighted a significant occurrence of sexual violence against children, believing that actual figures were likely much higher. The group called for the removal of the clause that allowed for spousal immunity, emphasising that women and children require the legal protections they deserve. The Society for the Promotion of Community Standards contended that simply imposing harsher penalties for rape would not effectively decrease its incidence. They suggested that Parliament should also focus on reducing the availability of pornographic materials, which they believed incited the impulses leading to rape. They argued that by criminalising rape within marriage, the legal treatment of married women would be equivalent to that of unmarried women, potentially undermining the institution of marriage and eradicating spousal immunity. Furthermore, the Zonta Club of Wellington proposed that complainants should have the option to testify without the accused present, and that their evidence could be recorded in advance, either as audio or in written form. They argued that this approach would minimize the distress experienced by many victims during court proceedings where they are cross-examined in the presence of their assailants. Contrastingly, the Society for Research on Women expressed its opposition to the complete exclusion of the public from court proceedings, advocating instead for transparency in the justice process. A Dunedin lawyer, Mr John O’Neill, recommended that the definition of rape remain unchanged from the existing law, which defines it as an act involving a male perpetrator and female or child victim. He cautioned that redefining the term could open the door to legalising homosexual acts between adult men, sparking further legal complexities. The discussions highlighted a stark divide of opinions on how best to address issues surrounding rape, spousal immunity, and the prosecution of such crimes within marriage, reflecting broader societal views on gender roles and legal protection for women and children.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand