this product is unavailable for purchase using a firm account, please log in with a personal account to make this purchase.

The LIV is currently closed to all visitors.

We are working remotely to deliver member services. For more information visit our 

COVID-19 Hub
Select from any of the filters or enter a search term

LIV welcomes the ability for families, partners and close friends of deceased sexual assault victims to speak out

LIV welcomes the ability for families, partners and close friends of deceased sexual assault victims to speak out

By LIV Media


Law Institute of Victoria (LIV) welcomes changes to the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958 proposed by the Victorian Government last week, which will allow families of sexual assault victims to speak out.

The Judicial Proceedings Reports Amendment Bill (“the Bill”), introduced in Parliament on Tuesday 3 August, seeks to amend to the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958, which currently requires family members, partners, or friends of the deceased victim to obtain a court order to speak publicly about the crimes against their loved ones.

LIV president Tania Wolff welcomed the amendments included in the Bill, noting that the legislation needs to strike a delicate balance in protecting the rights of non-consenting victim survivors with the interests of affected persons.

“A crucial aspect of all laws is how they consider and protect the rights of victims. These changes enable the loved ones of deceased victims to continue to advocate on their behalf.” Ms Wolff said.

The Bill also seeks to clarify that the prohibition on publishing details likely to lead to the identification of a victim of a sexual offence ends upon the death of that victim.

It also introduces a new victim privacy order (‘VPO’) scheme. This scheme will enable a person with a sufficient interest (for example a family member, partner or close friend of a deceased sexual offence victim) to apply for a VPO to protect the identity and privacy of the deceased. Importantly, a convicted or alleged perpetrator cannot apply, even if they are a family member or close friend. Whilst the duration of a VPO is capped at five years, an application can be made to the court to extend the VPO.

The LIV reiterates its position that victims ought to maintain their right to privacy after their death, and that the publication prohibition should not end at this point.

“While the VPO scheme would go some way to protecting the privacy of victims, this should be the default setting,” Ms. Wolff said.

“It is encouraging that there are commitments within the Bill to review the scheme after two years, and that there are some safeguards in place such as the requirement to provide a statement of reasons for making or a extending a victim privacy order.”

The LIV also notes that the Bill has not considered a period of privacy, between the death of a victim-survivor and the end of the publication prohibition, to allow families and friends a reasonable period to grieve and adequate time to seek a VPO, if required.

The LIV urges the Victorian government to consult, listen and engage with relevant stakeholders, advocates, experts and the broader community, to ensure that the Bill meets the intended purposes, particularly as the Bill “sunsets” in two years.


Views expressed on (Website) are not necessarily endorsed by the Law Institute of Victoria Ltd (LIV).

The information, including statements, opinions, documents and materials contained on the Website (Website Content) is for general information purposes only. The Website Content does not take into account your specific needs, objectives or circumstances, and it is not legal advice or services. Any reliance you place on the Website Content is at your own risk.

To the maximum extent permitted by law, the LIV excludes all liability for any loss or damage of any kind (including special, indirect or consequential loss and including loss of business profits) arising out of or in connection with the Website Content and the use or performance of the Website except to the extent that the loss or damage is directly caused by the LIV’s fraud or wilful misconduct.

Be the first to comment