Hansard

I thank colleagues for staying for this debate on what I think is a critical issue.

The motion before us has four key themes. The first recognises that there is broad commitment across parties for the equally safe strategy and that much good work has taken place to improve the justice system. The second theme is that the Crown’s recent change in policy on compelling complainers is a retrograde step that is heavily opposed by campaigners, who believe that it will jeopardise both the wellbeing of survivors and their access to justice.

Thirdly, there is an alternative plan, and it shines a spotlight on the system rather than on the victims of sexual offences. Tonight, I will detail a five-point plan that Rape Crisis Scotland has prepared. Together, we are calling on the Solicitor General for Scotland and the Government to pause their plans to compel witnesses and to implement that plan first.

The final section of the motion addresses the desperate reality that rape crisis services are under immense pressure and need adequate and sustainable funding. I know that many colleagues in the chamber who are due to speak will talk about the equally safe strategy and the funding position of services in their own areas, but I will focus my speech on the problem and the alternative solution.

I am delighted to see the Solicitor General in her place, as I have a huge amount of respect for her and the job that she does. I approach the debate in the full knowledge that she has spent a large part of her professional life working in the field of sexual offences. She is an impressive lawyer and a formidable prosecutor, but I believe that she is wrong on this issue.

The roots of my belief are based in the work of Rape Crisis Scotland, which has for 40 years, in front of politicians and Parliaments and by the sides of victims in our courts, advocated on behalf of survivors of rape. In addition, I have read thoroughly the “Thematic Review of the Investigation and Prosecution of Sexual Crimes” by the Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland, which was published by the Scottish Government in November. The report tells us that victims believe that the court process is utterly humiliating. One woman said:

“It was the most degrading experience I have been through”.

Another said:

“Court was absolutely horrendous, it was worse than being raped.”

The first key finding of the report is that there is too little information and support available to victims for them to have any confidence in the system. It goes on to state that communication with victims fell below expected standards in 47 per cent of cases; that the Crown has an unrealistic expectation of victims’ understanding of the system; and that there is too much of an onus on victims to seek updates on their cases, to find support, to deal with shifts and uncertainties in the scheduling of trials and to understand an environment over which they have no control. That is just a handful of the findings in the 85-page report, and those are things that we should be compelled to change.

Rape Crisis Scotland has provided me with a personal testimony from a woman whom they are currently working with. It is a live case, but I have checked the testimony with the Presiding Officers in advance and there is nothing in this statement that could be considered sub judice. Speaking for the first time about her rape, the woman said:

“When it happened, the police were called for me, it was not a decision I made for myself. I ended up speaking to them in my house at 5am then spent the whole next day giving a full statement and having forensics taken.

I was awake for nearly 48 hours and felt in shock as I spoke to them. I hadn’t really had time to process anything or to think about what would happen next but I was called a day later and told the perpetrator had been released on bail and someone would be in touch about a trial.

That was when the reality of the situation hit me and I have thought about the possibility of giving evidence at a trial every day since then.

What will it be like to give evidence? How long will it take? How will I be strong enough to answer questions? How can I cope with being cross-examined by a defence lawyer?

I first met with my Rape Crisis advocacy worker shortly after the attack happened, she told me it would be possible to withdraw from the process if I needed to and I wouldn’t be forced into giving evidence.

When she told me that, I felt a sense of relief that I had some control over the process.

When my advocacy worker called to tell me about the change I immediately panicked and thought ‘this can’t be happening’.

I am faced with the reality that there is a possibility they might force me to give evidence. Living every day with that possibility is terrible. I know it may be unlikely but I cannot help but think of the worst case scenario.

If I was able to go back and have the choice to report, knowing that there was no guarantee I could withdraw if it became too much to cope with, there is a good chance I would make the decision not to report at all.”

That is the testimony of a rape victim dealing with the justice system as it is today. However, if members prefer hard facts to the raw emotion contained in that testimony, they should look again at the inspectorate’s report. It contains an indicted case review of cases that took over 10 months to get to court. It says that, in just under half the cases,

“There was no obvious justification for the length of time taken by the prosecutor to progress the investigation.”

The delays were caused by the disengagement of the victim in just two cases.

I am at a complete loss as to how anyone could read the report and conclude that the answer is to increase the burden on the victim rather than to seek to fix the broken system. The report itself even concludes:

“If the victim is unable to give evidence or their ability is impaired by anxiety, fear, intimidation or a sense of isolation, it is likely to have a significant impact on the outcome of the trial”—

and that is what we will be doing if we compel victims to give evidence.

Here is what we should do instead. First, rape complainers should not have to give evidence in court. Evidence and cross-examination should be pre-recorded. I was delighted to hear Lord Carloway, Scotland’s most senior judge, call for that approach on the radio this morning.

Secondly, a concerted effort must be put into reducing the delays and changes to court dates. Thirdly, the Scottish Government should commission further research into the complainers’ experience of the court process and their reasons for wishing to withdraw. Fourthly, the rules over an individual’s sexual history and character being used in court, which are now over 10 years old, should be independently reviewed and updated. Finally—and crucially—rape crisis services must be properly and sustainably funded. No longer can we ask them to do more with less.

In conclusion, I do not doubt the Crown’s intentions. We all want to see rape conviction rates vastly improved. However, it is the belief of campaigners—and the evidence that is presented shows this—that the policy will likely have the opposite effect. I urge the Government and the Crown to think again.