Discussion Group – January 2022

The Discussion Group met on Monday 10th January to talk about the difficult subject of the prosecution of rape within the justice system. Some basic statistics had been obtained, and no one doubted the abhorrent nature of the crime and the problems of prosecuting it. The Office of National Statistics carried out a large scale survey in 2020, and 1.6 million adults in the UK had experienced rape or attempted rape in their lifetime, half more than once. About half the cases involved a partner or ex partner, and only 16% were reported to the police. In 2020 there were about 60,000 complaints leading to 2,000 prosecutions and 1,400 convictions, or about 70%.

Bearing in mind the low prosecution rate we talked about several quite radical ideas. Bearing in mind the lack of collaborating evidence in many cases, should they be decided on the balance of probability rather than beyond reasonable doubt? Should the defence have to prove innocence rather than the prosecution guilt? Should cases continue to be heard in public before juries or could anything be learned from the more closed nature of family court cases? In view of the statistics it seems unlikely that all jury members can be unaffected by some personal connection to a victim.

Some of these ideas are very radical indeed. More consideration was given to areas which were perceived as being subject to unfair practises. The adversarial nature of our legal system leads to efforts to damage the reliability of the evidence of the parties and witnesses. The length of time criminal cases take to come to court, and the vast amount of potential evidence on computers and phones seem to be big problems. Judges are sometimes perceived as allowing unfair questioning over sexual histories, for example, for fear of a mistrial. The difficulty of accepting the testimony of the parties if they had been drinking was mentioned.

A number of other matters were touched on. The possibilities of videoing statements and perhaps also attendance at court to give evidence electronically rather than in person was spoken about. There was a general acceptance that the whole court procedure has to be seen to be fair and balanced for both the prosecution and defence. It was felt so many cases might turn on the issue of consent that that alone could be treated as a topic by itself.

Two points came out that were considered to be worthy of real consideration. Firstly the creation of special courts dealing with sex crimes, and connected to this professional (but not full time) jurors. It was felt that jurors having experience of such court proceedings may be able to be more objective and that questioning might get fairer if barristers haven’t got a gallery to play to. Making the court process as user friendly as possible, whilst retaining fairness is of paramount importance.

The correct legal terms are not necessarily used in this article.

Michael Heyden, Convenor

Please note that the views expressed by the Discussion Group may not represent those of the wider Dawlish and District membership.