Rape case jury trials could be scrapped

Ending jury trials for rapes and tougher rules on consent will be considered in a review announced today by Victoria Atkins, the Home Office minister, into the way sexual violence against women is investigated and prosecuted. She said the root-andbranch review would investigate how victims were treated from when they reported their allegations to the final court verdict. It follows a rise in sexual assaults alongside a sharp fall in offenders being brought to justice.

SCRAPPING jury trials for rapes and tougher rules on consent could be considered in a major review announced today by the Government into the way sexual violence against women is investigated and prosecuted.

Victoria Atkins, the Home Office minister, said the root-and-branch review would investigate how victims of rape and sexual violence were treated from when they reported their allegations to the final verdict in court.

It follows a rise in sexual assaults to a record high that has also been accompanied by a decline in the number of offenders being brought to justice.

Citing the sheer scale of incidents highlighted by the Metoo and Timesup campaigns, Ms Atkins said: “We as a society must do all we can to tackle these horrendous crimes and attitudes.

“Violence against women and girls strike at the heart of our families, friendships and communities, and it is our responsibility to bring light, justice and support to victims and survivors.”

Whitehall sources indicated the review of the criminal justice system would consider potential reforms advocated by charities, campaigners and victim groups.

Ann Coffey MP, author of two independent reports into child sexual exploitation in Greater Manchester, said: “It is vital the review thinks outside the box and examines whether the jury system is the best way to deliver justice in rape cases because of the dominance of ‘rape myths’ in society, such as girls who drink or wear short skirts are ‘asking for it’.”

A parallel review of laws in Northern Ireland has already proposed that rape defendants should be forced to prove they actively sought consent for sex from their alleged victims.

The review by Lord Justice Sir John Gillen, a former appeal court judge in Northern Ireland, has also recommended members of the public should be banned from rape trials to help reduce the distress of complainants.

Other measures recommended in his review – which was launched after two rugby players were acquitted in a high-profile trial – include reducing “the humiliating and distressing” nature of cross-examination of the accuser in rape trials and legislation to combat the impact of social media.

Ms Atkins also announced research into links between porn and violence against women; an investigation into the surge in cases of “online flashing”, where women are sent unsolicited sexual images; and a study of the impact of alcohol on violence against women and girls.

The number of sexual offences increased by 14 per cent last year to the highest since records began in April 2002, according to official figures.

The Crime Survey of England and Wales estimates 20 per cent of women and 4 per cent of men have experienced some type of sexual assault since the age of 16, with five in six victims (83 per cent) not reporting their experience to the police.

Yet fewer than a third of young men aged 18 to 24 prosecuted for rape are convicted, while charging rates fell from 62 per cent in 2013-14 to 37 per cent by September last year.

Sajid Javid, the Home Secretary, said: “We must do all we can, across Government and society, to support victims and bring perpetrators to justice.”

The review is part of the Government’s “Violence against Women and Girls Strategy”.

The attempts to skew the criminal justice system so that a greater number of defendants in rape cases are found guilty continue apace. As we report today, a new review being established by the Government might even consider scrapping trial by jury and introducing tougher rules of consent. Such an approach merely opens up the prospect of even greater injustices both to alleged perpetrators and victims.

Juries are there to establish whether the evidence exists to convict beyond reasonable doubt. Rape is one of the most serious crimes and rightly carries a heavy sentence on conviction. That is one reason why many juries in so-called “date” rape cases decline to find defendants guilty because they do not consider that the right charge has been brought.

The law is trying to find a single template for myriad social interactions that 12 men and women sitting on a jury panel can understand. Various collapsed trials have shown that consent is not a simple issue however much the law is tweaked.

Juries can take account of the circumstances in which people, often known to each other, find themselves and reach a decision that may not look good on the statistics but represents an honest attempt to dispense justice.

There are issues around prosecutions that need to be addressed such as reducing the often humiliating and distressing nature of crossexamination of the accuser in rape trials. But abolishing juries is emphatically not the answer.

A more honest approach would be for the Law Commission to consider once again whether a separate offence of date rape is merited.