I’ll sue the courts so no other sex attack victim will face this torment
Survivor says she’ll take legal action after her traumatic ordeal at trial
Shannon, 24, described her court ordeal as the worst experience of her life and told how she was subjected to “inhumane” questioning and accused of supplying drugs.
Lord Justice General Lord Carloway said the victim was forced to endure “repetitive and at times irrelevant questioning” and described the case as a “serious failure in the administration of justice”.
He criticised how Shannon was cross-examined, the conduct of defence solicitor Andy Aitken and that of presiding sheriff Peter Hammond as well as prosecutors for failing to intervene.
After the Sunday Mail highlighted her case last week, Shannon – whose identity is protected by law and who ha s allowed us to use her first name – is now consulting lawyers about taking legal action against the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS).
She will claim that her treatment was a breach of her right to privacy under the European Convention on Human Rights.
A previous case at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg found that presiding judges must ensure victims of sexual crimes are protected during court proceedings.
Shannon is also considering legal action against the Crown Off ice and Procurator Fiscal Service.
She was attacked by Gavin MacDonald, her boyfriend’s flat mate, in Bath gate, West Lothian, in August 2017.
MacDonald, 52, was sentenced to 27 months in prison last September after being found guilty at Livingston Sheriff Court.
He launched an appeal against his conviction, claiming that Sheriff Hammond referred to Shannon as being a “victim” and that prejudiced jurors.
Three senior judges – Lord Carloway, Lord Pentland and Lord Turnbull – rejected the appeal but hit out at the handling of the trial.
Shannon said: “Giving evidence was torture. It was a horrific experience to endure after what
I had already been through. I felt under attack and completely alone in that courtroom.
“I have been told that there is a legal requirement to protect someone in my situation in court and that clearly didn’t happen with this case.
“The judges who lookedd at the case in the appeall court were very critical of the way it was conductedd and I hope that would go inn my favour.
“I am going to be taking ng this as far as I can because se what happened to me was wrong and I don’t want ant anyone else to have to go through it.”
In the 2015 case, the Strasbourg court found court ourt authorities in Sloveniaa had failed to protect the rights of a victim’s integrity during trial and that they should have protected the rights of the victim in court. The ruling, which could provide a basis for Shannon’s claim, stated: “The court considers that it was first and foremost the responsibility of the presiding judge to ensure that respect for the applicant’s personal integrity was a de qua telyqyp protected at the trial. Cross- examination
shou l d not be used as a means of intimidating or humiliating witnesses.”
Lord Carloway made his comments at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh last month. He said the trial was “conducted in a manner which flew in the face of basic rules of evidence and procedure”. Shannon told how MacDonald’s lawyer falsely said she had taken cocaine and dealt tthe drug on the night she waswa attacked.
She was also quizzed by AitAitken over the length of ththe clothing she was wearwearing. A spokeswoman for the JJudicial Official for ScotScotland, which is part of ththe Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, said:sai “It would not be appropriateapp for the JudicialJud Of f ice for ScotlandScot to make any commentcomment.””
A spokeswoman for the Crown Off ice and Procurator Fiscal Service: “COPFS is committed to the ef fect ive and fai r prosecution of sexual crime and to assisting and supporting victims and witnesses through the prosecution process.
“The decision of the appeal court has been brought to the at tention of al l Scotland’s prosecutors, along with additional guidance on protecting witnesses in sexual offences cases.”
Aitken did not respond to requests for comment.
A Rape Crisis spokeswoman said: “Far too many women who have been through sexual offence trials tell us of how traumatised and violated the experience left them feeling.
“Some rape survivors have told us the experience of court was as bad or worse as the rape itself.
“This is unacceptable. Courts have a responsibility to protect complainers from inhumane or degrading treatment.
“In our experience, it is far too common that victims of sexual crime feel like no one is protecting them in court. This needs to change.”