Judge rape words ‘horror’

A WOMEN’S legal advocate is “horrified” after a Hobart judge said it wasn’t an “aggravating” factor that a young rapist didn’t wear a condom because he didn’t ejaculate or have an STI.

Last week, the Mercury published a story on Justice Gregory Geason’s October 18 sentence of the youth, who can’t be named due to his age and who was jailed for nine months.

The then-17-year-old had raped the victim twice and sexually assaulted her once at a Carlton party during May 2017, holding his hand over her mouth briefly during the attack.

“There is no suggestion you have any disease, and I have commented that you did not ejaculate. In my view, the fact that the sex was unprotected is not in this case an aggravating factor,” the Supreme Court of Tasmania judge said while sentencing.

Yvette Cehtel, Women’s Legal Service Tasmania CEO, said her organisation was “really horrified” to read the sentence.

“Particularly concerning to us was the language around unprotected sex,” she said.

“You can’t dress it up by saying he didn’t ejaculate.”

Ms Cehtel also expressed concern that the rape was referred to as “sexual intercourse”.

“He wasn’t having sex, he was raping her, and that’s what the jury found,” she said.

“Language is really important and we didn’t feel we could stand back and not challenge this because it does suggest this is normative.

“It is not normal behaviour, the jury has called it out as rape so it needs to be characterised as rape, not sex.”

Thirdly, Ms Cehtel was also alarmed that a remark by the rapist to another reveller at the party about wanting to have sex with the victim wasn’t seen as “predatory”, but rather a “crudely expressed statement of desire, not a statement of intention to act upon that desire unlawfully”.

“We need to be mindful of our language,” Ms Cehtel said.

“It’s a bit like Trump dressing up his locker room talk. Is it OK for men to talk about women like that? We say it’s not.

“It’s disrespectful and it’s that attitude of disrespect that fuels the behaviours in our community.”

She said she felt the legal system had become disconnected from community expectations, and that lawyers and judges needed ongoing training.

The Supreme Court has been contacted for comment.