Sexual consent laws in NSW will be reviewed after the woman who accused a man of raping her in a Kings Cross lane when she was an 18-year-old virgin spoke publicly about her ordeal.
NSW Attorney-General Mark Speakman said on Tuesday he would refer the state’s consent laws to the Law Reform Commission.
Saxon Mullins, now 23, was anally raped in an alleyway behind a popular nightclub in Sydney’s party district in 2013 on her first night out in the big smoke.
She shared her story on Monday night on ABC’s Four Corners in the hope of provoking a discussion about consent.
Over a five-year period, Ms Saxon endured two trials and two appeals with Luke Lazarus eventually walking free.
After the first jury trial he spent 11 months in jail before his conviction for raping Ms Mullins was overturned on appeal in 2016.
The Blurred Lines Of Consent with Vanessa Grigoriadis. Post continues after audio.
He was later cleared following a judge-alone retrial.
The NSW Director of Public Prosecutions then lodged an appeal against the acquittal over the May 2013 incident.
In the second appeal last November, the Court of Criminal Appeal found that while the judge in the second trial erred, Mr Lazarus would not be retried with a judge saying it would be “oppressive” for him to have “the expense and worry” of another hearing.
Mr Speakman said sexual consent laws needed clarity.
“What this shows is that there is a real question about whether our law in NSW is clear enough, is certain enough, is fair enough,” Mr Speakman told ABC radio on Tuesday.
“That is why I have asked the Law Reform Commission to look at the whole question of consent in sexual assault trials.”
The trial heard Mr Lazarus met Ms Mullins on the dance floor where he told her he was part owner of the nightclub and offered to introduce her to the DJ in the VIP area.
Instead he led her into a back lane way and the pair kissed before, according to Ms Mullins, he forced her into the sex act.
Trump Appoints Former Competitor Into His Administration
The Quicky
Top Comments
Glad to see. I can understand how sometimes there are grey areas eg when the woman has gone on a date and gone back to the guy’s place and is naked and kissing and then is unsure about going further but doesn’t speak up. Enthusiastic consent would definitely be useful for clarity in these circumstances.
But... I can’t see how anyone could possibly believe Luke Lazarus’ story that he mistakenly thought he had consent. Not only did he deliberately trick Saxon about where he was taking her, he admitted to getting her to add her name into his ‘trophy list’ in his phone, and he crudely boasted about how he ‘took’ her virginity, in text messages he sent to his mate the next day.
Unfortunately the issue wasn’t about believing him or not. It was a failure to PROVE that he knew consent was not given, based on the legal definitions around consent. This legal failure was appalling, in my opinion. Especially the total failure for the law to take into account the possibility that victims can freeze out of fear.
In this case, enthusiastic consent isn’t removing a grey area so much as closing a loop hole that lets perpetrators get away with their crimes.