So many ways to deny justice to victims of rape

Harry Cohen has shown his commitment to victims of rape over many years, working to improve the response of the legal authorities.  We welcome his 10-Minute Rule Bill on 15 October to exclude the defence of sleepwalking from rape cases, on grounds that unlike a defence of insanity it exempts perpetrators from any consequence for what they have done and offers no protection to others they may attack. 

The defence of sleep walking is rare, but the ways in which victims of rape and sexual assault are commonly denied justice are many.

Comparable to sleepwalking but much more widespread is the defence of “belief in consent”.  Based on the woman’s sexual history with other men, the accused can argue that he believed the woman consented.  And this is while he is awake!  This sexual history is not relevant to the case and should not be raised in court.

Despite legal restrictions, research in 2006 found that a woman’s previous sexual history is still raised in three-quarters of rape trials.  It is used to attack the victim’s credibility and reputation; prosecution and judge rarely object.  Vera Baird in a parliamentary speech in 2006 acknowledged that, “Whatever exclusion we bring in will never work while the defence can claim belief and consent.*”  What is she doing about this now she is Solicitor General?

Successive changes have not dealt with this key weakness in the rape law, or with a basic unwillingness by the criminal justice authorities to investigate and prosecute rape. 

• The disrespectful, negligent and lazy way in which rape is investigated and prosecuted.  Without concrete evidence and a well-presented prosecution the jury cannot return a guilty verdict.  We held a public Rape Trial in February, at which nearly 30 women spoke out about the injustice they had suffered.  Only one case had reached conviction – a private prosecution that the victims (with our help) had to bring to court themselves, because the CPS assumed no jury would believe women who worked as prostitutes. They were proved wrong; the case was well prosecuted and the rapist got 11 years.

• Nobody in the police, CPS or judiciary is held to account for widespread sexism.  As Home Office research has repeatedly acknowledged, in rape cases the police and CPS look for obstacles, not evidence.  Rape survivors have seen police officers and prosecutors disbelieve them, lose or ignore evidence, misinterpret facts, or wrongly “no-crime” the rape they have suffered, without being sacked or even disciplined; in fact they are often promoted. 

• Victims who have to live with the consequences of such injustice have no legal redress.  Police complaints lead to nothing.  The police cannot be sued for carrying out a negligent investigation, as there is no legal duty to victims of crime. 

• The victim has no right of appeal if the CPS decides not to prosecute a case, or drops it after it has started.  The prosecutor doesn’t prepare the case with the victim, and they do not defend her in court. 

• Judges are a law unto themselves.  To our knowledge no judges have had their “rape ticket” (approval to sit in rape cases) removed. 

• Police and CPS have trumpeted trained specialists as the main solution, but what is the point of specialists if even they are not doing their job properly and yet no consequences follow?  What are they being paid for?

Harry Cohen’s Bill encourages MPs to look again at how the criminal justice system allows violent men to get away with rape – and sometimes murder.  Much more needs to be done to reverse a national conviction rate for recorded rape which remains under 6%.

14 October 2008 

* Vera Baird MP, Westminster Hall Debate, Hansard 21 March 2006