We must rethink how rape cases are handled

IWONDER how the young woman at the centre of the Belfast trial is feeling today. I wonder whether she is feeling empowered by all the public marches and social media campaigns that proclaim #Ibelieveher and #SueMePaddy or whether she wishes the whole thing would just go away, so she can get back to her life.

This 21-year-old woman waited for two years for this trial to happen. As she waited for due process to take place, she presumably thought that the four men would be convicted. Now that they have been acquitted, is she regretting the entire trial?

Justice delayed is justice denied – for both the accuser and the accused. The length of time it takes between a rape being reported and a case going to trial can be up to three years; but with some commitment and effort, this time delay could be rectified.

If the whole procedure was speeded up, then both the rape complainant and the accused could confront the problem and move on to begin the process of recovery from a traumatic event. Being left in a dreadful limbo for years is bad for everyone involved.

Yet the time lag was only one aspect of a case that was littered with problems.

Many people believe that the aggressive cross-questioning of the victim and the witnesses is what urgently needs to change in rape trials of the future. Women have the right to love sex; they are allowed to be ‘mad for it’; and they also have the right to change their mind when the prospective sex suddenly loses its allure.

A woman with a high sex drive can choose to go out some night and get laid, but this doesn’t give anyone the right to rape her, hurt her, humiliate her, urinate on her, beat her or do any of the other awful activities that are commonly described in rape cases.

These are the facts, although you would never guess that from the old-fashioned and sexist questioning from aggressive barristers in rape cases.

Consent is reversible – we have the right to consent to have sex and then think that, on reflection, it’s not such a great idea. We are allowed to change our minds.

Women of my mother’s generation were taught that once they had started relations with a man they had to give in to the man’s animal desires or he would be left like a horny bull, dangerous and out of control.

‘Blue balls’ was the phrase that was used in my youth, a phrase that was designed to convince young girls that it was dangerous to awaken the red raging beast of lust in the boys, unless we were prepared to follow through and satisfy the men’s extraordinary desires.

It turns out that this was all rubbish.

Men do have sexual desires, but – wait for it – so do women.

Women’s animal desires can also be awoken and they too can be left twitching and unsatisfied. One person’s desire to have sex doesn’t override another person’s desire not to have sex.

THE court process works against the complainant in rape cases. It almost beggars belief that in the Belfast trial there were four defence teams questioning the woman while she was alone in court, without advocacy or emotional support.

Each of the accused had a defence team and so each had the opportunity to use a different approach to attempt to discredit the complainant.

Standing up to four defence teams whose main aim is to destroy your credentials is also very hard.

Some people need advocacy and support so that they can learn to find their strong voice. The extraordinary performance of Jodie Foster in the famous rape drama ‘The Accused’ is a good way for people to remind themselves just how hard it is to be a complainant in a rape case.

Many European countries use an inquisitorial system, instead of the adversarial system that we use. In an inquisitorial system, the judge alone acts as the investigator and the victim is questioned only by the judge.

The rape complainant in the Belfast trial must have felt horrified during the serious discussion of whether the images of her vagina should be displayed to the jury as evidence.

Thankfully, these images were deemed unnecessary.

But perhaps juries should be abolished altogether for rape cases? It seems likely that barristers would refrain from such aggressive questioning if they only had to convince an experienced judge, instead of an impressionable jury.

In 2009, the last year for which there are available figures, the conviction rate for rape cases was a lowly 8pc.

There is little point in an alleged victim of sexual violence going to the courts if the odds are stacked so badly against them.

This means that the vast majority of rapists are walking the streets freely without any sort of safeguards or proper risk assessments carried out on their activities.

Think on that the next time you blithely argue that rape victims need to be stronger, shrewder or smarter.

Perhaps juries ought to be abolished altogether for rape cases?