Recently a teacher was acquitted at the end of a full trial on charges of outraging the modesty of three ‘deaf-mute’ female students in 2005. The Sessions Court judge reportedly said that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the charges were not specific.

While respecting the criminal justice process and the rights of an accused to a fair trial, the Women’s Centre for Change, Penang (WCC), remains deeply concerned over the prosecution and outcomes of sexual crime trials, especially those involving special needs individuals.

In the above mentioned case, a number of questions come to mind. Given the hearing and speech impairments of the victims, how did the police, investigating officers and the court communicate with the victims or assess the accuracy of information given via the interpreters (assuming sign language was used)?

How much time did the prosecution spend with the three victims preparing them for the trial? What sort of preparation went into the case if the judge stated that the charges against the accused "did not state what was the criminal intimidation he had allegedly committed against the victims to outrage their modesty and how had he done so’.

There were also discrepancies in the dates of the incidents given by the victims? Why were the charges not prepared with care and even amended during the trial? Why were the discrepancies not sorted out prior to the trial?

Sexual crime victims have little choice but to place their trust in the criminal justice system where the state prosecutes the perpetrators on the victim’s behalf. Given that only a fraction of reported sexual crimes result in the accused being charged in court, it becomes ever so important that the state mounts a well-prepared prosecution.

WCC’s research into sexual crime cases tried in subordinate courts in Penang between 2000 and 2004 showed the following with regards to outrage of modesty cases (S354). Of the 125 cases which went to full trial, only 2.4% resulted in a guilty verdict, while 27.2% resulted in acquittals and 63.2% were given a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA).

The low conviction rates, the acquittals and the high rate of DNAA verdicts send a shocking message to society regarding justice for sexual crime victims.

WCC maintains that for sexual crime victims to get justice there must be among other things, careful and thorough investigation, as well as, meticulous and skillful prosecution. Until there is change to this effect, acquittals and DNAA verdicts will continue. Surely the victims deserve better than this.

The writer is programme director Women’s Centre for Change (WCC) .