性侵被害人作证程序的完善——澳大利亚性侵法律的改革实践  

Improving the Testifying Experience of Sexual Assault Victims:Lessons Learnt from the Australian Sexual Assault Law Reforms

作　　者：曾元君 Zeng Yuanjun

机构地区：[1]西南政法大学法学院 [2]西南政法大学诉讼法与司法改革研究中心

出　　处：《人大法律评论》2022年第1期275-308,共34页Renmin University Law Review

摘　　要：被害人陈述是性侵案件的关键证据,但我国立法、司法、学界较少对性侵被害人作证相关问题予以关注。传统的案卷笔录中心主义审理模式正受到庭审实质化改革的挑战,需思考性侵被害人是否应出庭作证及如何作证。我国当前的性侵法律有待完善;由于作证协助服务阙如、庭审控辩对抗、辩护律师滥用强奸谬见、特殊作证保护措施缺失,性侵被害人作证易遭受严重二次伤害。澳大利亚性侵法律改革路径反映出英美法系主要国家对抗式性侵审判改革的一般路径。分析澳大利亚程序法、证据法改革所采取的澄清常见强奸谬见与改善作证保护两条主要路径,并结合“高某某、王某案”法庭观察以考察其改革实效,可从完善被害人作证程序角度,为我国性侵审判平衡被害人隐私、尊严利益与被告人公正审判权,以及确保被害人证言质量提供参考。Victim statements are key prosecution evidence for sexual assault cases,yet the legislature,administration of justice and academia have paid scant attention to issues concerning victim testifying at trial.The traditional Chinese trial system characterised by the file-transcript centrism is currently subjected to challenges from the trial-centred procedure reforms aimed at consolidating the trial process.It is thus necessary to consider whether these victims should attend trial to testify and if so,how.Looking at sexual assault victims giving evidence in practical trials,this study finds that the Chinese sexual assault law reforms are lagging;and victims are prone to secondary victimisation due to the lack of victim and witness assistance services,the adversarial atmosphere of the trial,the defence use of rape myths,alongside the inadequate protective measures.The Australian sexual assault law reforms reveal a common approach taken by common law systems.Through canvassing the Australian reforms that range across procedural and evidence laws to dispel common myths and improve protection of victims,as well as observing the complainant testifying at the trial of Gao and Wang,it may prove revealing to Chinese reformists as regards balancing victims'interests in privacy and dignity against the defendant's access to a fair trial,and achieving best evidence.

关 键 词：性侵 被害人 出庭作证 二次伤害 强奸谬见 

分 类 号：D961.1[政治法律—法学] D914