Speaking up for victims

Say you’re attacked like Wendy Hamer was.

You did nothing to provoke it, but out of the blue you are set upon in a ferocious, sustained and brutal attack.

Mentally you’re braced for the worst. You won’t make it out of this alive but somehow, through sheer grit and survival instinct, you do.

But the nightmare goes on. You face a long, slow, painful physical recovery.

Even harder is finding a way out of the torment emotionally. You have to keep yourself busy, mentally occupied, because any gaps, any quiet moments, the memories of that day will replay like some demonic loop. Life turned on that moment in that room.

The legal cogs grind slowly; there is a resolution of sorts and the case is closed.

But for the victim it’s never over. Putting something like this to rest is next to impossible.

The Victim’s Rights Act 2002, however, enshrines certain rights as the victim of serious crime. It ensures the right to be notified of services and remedies, the right to be notified of any progress in the investigation, the right to be heard on matters like whether the accused can have name suppression, how the offence has affected you, whether an offender should be granted parole or home detention, whether the offender should be released on bail or not. And the right to be notified so that when parole is being considered you can be part of that conversation.

Victims are in such a vulnerable position through all of this process that they have to believe their rights will be upheld. That they can speak out and be heard.

The VRA should be bedrock, an impenetrable shield victims can carry into battle.

But in Wendy Hamer’s case she’s been stripped of some of that protection because her attacker was found to be insane, and therefore not guilty.

You can’t view Wendy’s response with anything less than the utmost admiration and respect.

She has come through the horrors of that day with the spirit and conviction to fight. Not only to claim back some of her rights but also ensure others never have to endure the same.

Her petition deserves to heard and Nick Smith is to be commended for joining the fray.

The process of determining whether someone is mentally fit to answer to the crimes they have committed is complex and delicate. So these matters run to slightly different rules. There is no right to address the court because there is no sentence.

You could argue that in every serious crime some form of insanity is at play. Severe personality deficits or even just a moment of madness. Serious premeditated crime is not committed by the rational, balanced and clearthinking.

There’s no neat line between sane and insane either so there’s no question the courts and the medical profession are in a very difficult position.

But the victim still needs to be part of that conversation.

Wendy Hamer is an excellent spokesperson because she worked in the mental health field and, when she was attacked, she was in that place, at that time, in a professional capacity.

The irony is that she understands better than most what is an unacceptable level of risk and, were she involved in this case in her day-to-day role, her words would have formed part of the legal narrative. As a victim she is locked out.

It’s important we stand behind Wendy Hamer. Should our turn come to go through what Wendy has, her fight could ensure someone is listening.

The VRA should be bedrock, an impenetrable shield victims can carry into battle.