Law change in 2024 to let victim impact statements be presented in South Australian court cases unedited
The language of victim impact statements were contested by defence counsel inin Adelaide murder cases involving Joanne Lillecrapp (left) and Anne Redman (with her dog Spotty in 2003).
A 12-years campaign by survivors, advocates and The Advertiser, particularly its chief court reporter Sean Fewster, had success in 2024 with the South Australian government legislating for victims of crime to be able to speak in court without the statements being edited.
The changes introduced by South Australian government attorney general Kyam Maher’s meant statements written by victims of crime and given during the sentencing of convicted offenders had to be:
* received by the court “in the victim’s own words” and could not be edited by prosecutors, defence counsel, offenders or judges.
* presented when the victim was ready to speak, with courts required to adjourn proceedings if they have “not had a reasonable opportunity” to draft their statement.
* given only after a victim has exercised their “express right to be informed” about the legal process and what use will be made, by the court, of their statements.
The changes also met concerns raised by victims and former victims’ rights commissioner Bronwyn Killmier, supported by her successor Sarah Quick, including instances where people were denied an opportunity to give statements. The Advertiser newspaper's chief court reporter Sean Fewster also highlighted how the criminal justice system sidelined victims.
One egregious example he exposed was when Ron Lillecrapp, who lost a sibling in one of South Australia’s most brutal murders, was forced to edit his victim impact statement three times before he was allowed to present it to the supreme court. Prosecutors ordered Lillecrapp not to call murderer Nicole McGuinness “a lower than life monster”, “scum”, a “destroyer” or “greedy”. He wasn't allowed to question her level of remorse. The defence lawyer then demanded even more changes. Lillecrapp later received an apology from the public prosecutions director for his treatment.
Ron Lillecrapp welcomed the changes to the victim impact statement law: “I would like to see it called ‘Joanne’s Law’ because, without her, this never would have happened.” Victim impact statements were introduced to begin their healing process but were open to challenges from defence counsel. Defence counsel could complain that, in showing emotion, victims have strayed beyond “injury, loss or damage” into invective, venom or scorn.
Some lawyers argued their clients should not be exposed to this. This became a notable issue during the sentencing in 2012 of two teenagers who used a blunt hunting knife to murder pensioner Anne Redman at Seacliff in Adelaide’s southwest. Redman’s family said they hoped the killers – one the son of a serving South Australia Police officer – would meet criminals “with souls as black of yours” in prison and suffer harm. They called the pair “unstoppable, untreatable predators” and “monsters”. The defence counsel said were “too personal” and should be retracted.
Public prosecutions director Adam Kimber SC, later a district court judge, agreed to have the Redmans “temper” their remarks. Then-victim’s rights commissioner Michael O’Connell hit back: .“Victims want offenders to know the emotional turmoil they have endured. They want to vent their anger … Judges and magistrates can find themselves accused of silencing victims.” Kimber disagreed, saying victims had to abide by the law.
In 2020, the lawyer for Jayden Tayne Lowah, who beat Michelle Foster to death outside Colonnades shopping centre, asked for all victim imapact statement to be suppressed. He argued the family’s anger failed to recognise the legal ruling that Lowah’s mental illness meant he didn’t realise the wrongfulness of his actions. Justice Sam Doyle refused his request, noting that victim impact statements had no bearing on an offender’s ultimate penalty.