A bombshell investigation has revealed that Australian police forces have been giving recordings of rape victims' statements directly to their alleged abusers, a shocking breach of trust that retraumatizes survivors and potentially jeopardizes prosecutions.
According to an investigation by News Corp, police in multiple jurisdictions have provided audio or video recordings of victim interviews directly to accused perpetrators as part of legal disclosure requirements, without adequate safeguards to prevent misuse.
The practice has left victims feeling violated a second time, with some reporting that accused abusers have shared the recordings with friends, used them for intimidation, or posted excerpts online. In several cases, victims have withdrawn from prosecutions after learning their statements were handed over.
This is criminal justice failure on a massive scale. Police are supposed to protect victims, not arm their abusers with evidence that can be weaponized for harassment and intimidation.
"I felt like I'd been raped all over again," one survivor told investigators, describing the moment she learned her detailed account of sexual assault had been given to the man she accused. "He had my voice, my trauma, my most vulnerable moment on a recording he could listen to whenever he wanted."
Legal experts say while defendants have a right to review evidence against them, there are established protocols for managing sensitive victim testimony. Transcripts, redacted recordings, or controlled access through legal representatives can provide disclosure without handing over recordings that can be misused.
"There is absolutely no legitimate reason to give an accused person a recording of their victim's statement that they can take home and do whatever they want with," said Dr. Jane Doe, a criminal law professor at Australian National University. "This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of trauma-informed justice."
The investigation found the practice varied widely across 's state and territory police forces, with some having clear protocols against providing recordings while others routinely handed them over as part of standard disclosure. and were specifically mentioned as jurisdictions where the practice had occurred.
