English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The case, R v Gravino, which came before the Supreme Court of Victoria in 1905, illustrates well the complex debates which often preceded state involvement in sexual assault cases and are revealing about community decisions to engage with the legal system. On 7 March 1905, 14-year-old Elsie Griffiths disclosed to her mother that their neighbour, 17-year-old Charlie Gravino, had sexually assaulted her or, in her words, ‘had me down at his place doing rude things’. Elsie’s father was dead, and her mother, Catherine Griffiths, kept a laundry in the Melbourne suburb of Brunswick, behind which Elsie lived with her mother, her 11-year-old brother Albert and her adult sister, Kate. The previous evening, Elsie had been sent out to look for her brother, when she met Charlie at the end of the lane. The two went into Charlie’s house, calling out for Albert. There, apparently taking advantage of no one being home, Charlie pushed Elsie down onto the ground and attempted to rape her.1 On the evening of 7 March, Catherine took Elsie to Charlie’s house, where they spoke to Charlie in front of his mother and stepfather. Catherine asked Charlie whether he had assaulted Elsie and he eventually admitted that ‘he might have done’. At that point, according to Catherine, Charlie’s mother ‘asked me to forgive the boy’ and she and Charlie shook hands. Catherine was prepared to forgive Charlie, she told the court, because ‘no harm ha[d] been done to her [Elsie]. I said this because she wasn’t monthly, she was too young’.2 This outcome, however, did not satisfy Elsie’s elder sister Kate, who evidently held a different opinion as to what constituted ‘harm’. The next day, Kate took matters into her own hands and demanded a written apology from Charlie, ‘for satisfaction for my sister’s character’. When no letter was forthcoming, Kate took Elsie to the police and then the hospital. After the medical examination, Charlie was charged with the attempted carnal knowledge of Elsie Griffiths.3

Using the Law: Working-Class Communities and Carnal Knowledge Cases in Victoria, 1900–06