Consent is an argumentative part of the common law system that has lately undergone legal reform,

in response to the R v Lazarus case. The Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Section 61HE clearly describes how a
person must freely consent to any sexual conduct, illustrating that the consenting adult must not be
unconscious, seriously intoxicated, or lack mental ability to have a valid consent. This Act was
unsuccessful in considering vulnerable persons and the many responses they have when they are in a
vulnerable situation such as Sexual Assault. The Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) was inadequately competent
to be regarded to apply to the 'freeze' response, as the complainant Mullins claimed occurred to her
in the R v Lazarus case. The complainant “did not say ‘stop' or 'no,'" according to the court. She did
not move away from the intercourse or attempted intercourse with any physical motion. The accused
was found guilty of sexual intercourse by a jury. He filed an appeal and was given a judge-only retrial,
which resulted in his acquittal due to it being allegedly unfair on his side. As a result, the NSW
Attorney General alongside the media regarding the exposing Four Corners documentary, requested
that section 61HA of the Crimes Act 1900 be reviewed by the NSW Law Reform Commission to
consider the reactions which come about when Sexual Assault begins to occur on a victim and make
recommendations. As a result, the Crimes Amendment (Consent – Sexual Offences) Act 2007 (NSW)
was developed which changed the definition of consent to be defined as a person freely and
voluntarily agreeing to sexual activity or better quoted by Ms Mullins “an enthusiastic yes”. This is
adamant that if the person does not clearly communicate their consent to sexual activity, they
should not be taken as consenting which is a clear reflection of the progression of societal values and
aims to protect the community and vulnerable individuals. Therefore, consent regarding sexual
violence has recently undergone law reform to suit the injustices and gaps of the R v Lazarus case.

Sexual Assault in Company as seen in the Skaf case is demonstrated as a driving case for reform to
further close a gap that was previously prevalent in the law. The R v Skaf case clearly demonstrates
the severity of sexual assault in company. The Skaf brothers, Mohammed and Bilal Skaf were apart of
three separate offences of ‘gang rape’ in August 2000 and were convicted of lengthy prison
sentences each. The public uproar and change of community standards caused by the gang rapes led
to the passage of new legislation through the Parliament of New South Wales, dramatically by
creating a new category of crime surrounding sexual assault in company and introducing new
sentencing laws. As a result of this sexual assault occurring, The Crimes Act 1900 was amended to
incorporate the bounds of sexual assault in company. This was amended to The Crimes Amendment
(Aggravated Sexual Assault in Company) Act 2001 (NSW). This amendment not only allows the court
to impose life imprisonment but also allows for a standard non-parole period of a minimum 15 years
once convicted of Sexual Assault in company. The amendment following the R v Skaf case reflects the
rights of individuals as the victims is receiving justice for being a victim of sexual assault in company.
Although, Skaf’s Original sentence of 55 years initially was greater than some murder sentences, it
was reduced as it was not the ‘worst category’ of crime. This caused public members to question why
the legal system did not increase the murder sentencing rather than decreasing the rape sentencing
indicating that there are still legal gaps prevalent in the law. These remaining gaps in the laws
regarding sexual assault still depicts the lack of balance of rights remaining within society and how
the rights of individuals regarding sexual assault are not always achieved. Therefore, because of the
R v Skaf case, this amendment has shown the effectiveness of law reform in Sexual Assault as justice
for victims are achieved.

Law reform regarding sexual assault has been ineffective in terms of encouraging victims to report
their cases of sexual assault leading to under-reporting. The Criminal Procedure Amendment (Sexual
Offence Case Management) Act 2005 (NSW) was made with the purpose to encourage more victims
to report their cases of sexual violence to the police, although this was proved as unsuccessful. An
ABS 2016 National Personal Safety Survey reported that approximately only 20% of women who had
experienced sexual violence by a male offender had reported the violence to the police leaving about
80% of women not reporting. There are many reasons as to why individuals do not report sexual
violence cases and these can include, it is time consuming, mentally exhausting, and hard to prove as
there are many grounds which consent can be argued by the defendant. The amendment was made
to promote and encourage victims of sexual assault to come forward to present their cases and
evidence without having to provide evidence in a re-trial due to the stress and trauma. This can be
seen as ineffective as even though the effort was put to raise reporting rates, the rates are still
significantly low sitting at a 20% reporting rate. The R v Lazarus displays this ineffectiveness even
further as such a public case, taking almost 5 years, is stressful for Ms Mullins, resulting in achieving
no justice which defeats the purpose of the amended Act and demotivates victims of sexual assault
to come forward. The problem with the continuing taboo surrounding low reporting rates, means
that statistics will never be accurate, and conviction rates will therefore remain low. This law reform
can be seen to have been effective in terms of individual rights which has seen a decrease in stress
and trauma when giving evidence and enforceability about how this law is enforced as not many
people are coming forward. Therefore, law reform regarding under-reporting has been ineffective
due to the still low figure of reporting sexual assault cases.