The dangers of the fallout from Salmond trial

The Alex Salmond trial outcome must not put off women from coming forward to report sexual crimes, says Laura Waddell

Alex Salmond had a fair trial, which he is entitled to. On Monday a jury acquitted him of criminal charges, finding in his favour against the testimony of nine women. Investigations into ministerial ethics will rumble on, but some seem to think Salmond is entitled not only to due process but to vengeance, and they are salivating over the prospect. This is deeply wrong.

It sometimes feels like we are living in two parallel Scotlands. The one in which some find the potential trouble of party infighting very exciting and are speculating on post-trial payback for anyone who aided the accusers, as though that were perfectly normal in a just society.

And another, in which some fear the impact of high-profile rape trials, no matter their eventual outcome, on the survivors of sexual assault. Encouraging rape survivors to report their experience is already difficult. “Only around 15 per cent of those who experience sexual violence report to the police,” say Rape Crisis. In 2017/8 less than 5 per cent of reported rapes and attempted rapes ended in a conviction – that’s 43 per cent of cases that were actually taken forward by prosecution – while one in five cases returns a not proven verdict. Belief in a fair trial means critiquing our legal system and understanding its weaknesses in tackling sexual crimes.

Beyond the low conviction rate for sexual crimes, it takes a lot of personal fortitude to withstand the rape myths which are inevitably unleashed around these cases and which damage the confidence of survivors in facing perpetrators. It is a grim reality that around a quarter of the public falsely believe women often lie about being raped. The erroneous belief that a ‘not guilty’ or ‘not proven’ verdict in a criminal case proves a complainant was lying, when it actually means prosecution was unable to prove guilt beyond doubt, is also being stoked by feverish conspiracy theorists.

Many women I know have dreaded the trial and its coverage because the misogyny underpinning rape myths is grotesque and endlessly wearying. As Rape Crisis Scotland said in their statement this week: “Regardless of the verdict, the detailed descriptions and court coverage has been triggering and very hard for many people. As the volume and nature of calls to our helpline show, whenever there are public conversations about sexual crimes, survivors are listening. We fear that the nature of the defence in this case which focused on trivialising behaviours that would amount to sexual assault risks turning the clock back on any progress we have made moving towards a better conversation about sexual violence.”

The most paranoid online trolls are hellbent on revenge. A conspiracy is being promoted that the whole episode is the doing of deliberate illwill. The identities of complainants cannot be legally identified but it does not stop conspiracists champing at the bit to get to them and anyone at all who listened to them. Those who truly care about justice in Scotland, particularly elected politicians, should be gravely concerned about this.

In looking on, what message is being sent to women of Scotland or those concerned about professional repercussions in going up against powerful men? That if unsuccessful in court, like the majority of sexual crimes cases, his allies will come for us? Women absolutely must not be dissuaded from coming forward, nor institutions intimidated for not brushing complaints under the rug.

Vitriol is also aimed at party insid