Chamber
Plenary, 28 Mar 2001
28 Mar 2001 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Drug-assisted Sexual Assault
As gender reporter for the Equal Opportunities Committee, I have worked on issues relating to women and the justice system. That work was started by Johann Lamont and the committee's sub-group. I take issue with one thing that Lyndsay McIntosh said: I think that the issue is a women's issue. However, with others, I congratulate Pauline McNeill on securing the debate.
As we know from research, the vast majority of women who are raped or sexually assaulted know their abusers. That is also the case with drug-assisted rapes. DCI Sturman's report on drug-assisted sexual assault was produced after interviews with 109 female and 14 male drug-rape victims. The report informs us that 70 per cent of victims knew their attackers and that 27 per cent of victims cited them as friends. Fifteen per cent cited attackers as fellow students. The report states that up to 25 different drugs—mostly types of tranquillisers, sleeping tablets and anaesthetics—are used.
After drug-assisted rape, most women are left with little or no clear memory of what has happened. They can therefore be reluctant to report the crime. Like other victims, they have a fear of being medically examined, of not being believed and of being questioned. The last is made worse by the possibility of the obscene spectacle of their attacker cross-examining them.
Until recently, proof of having been drugged was difficult to establish because the substance remained in the blood for only a few hours. However, I understand that new tests have been developed that can trace such drugs for up to 18 months after the attack. I feel that that needs to be highlighted.
If charges are made and the case goes to court, victims have to relive the whole horrific experience. They can end up feeling that they are the one in the dock. It is often implied that a woman has asked for it because of her dress, make-up, behaviour or sexual history. Two thirds of the drugged victims interviewed for the study that I mentioned said that they decided not to report the attack to the police because they were too ashamed or because they blamed themselves. Of those who reported what happened to the authorities, more than half felt that their treatment by the police was poor. Perhaps the police could learn lessons from their current approach to domestic abuse.
If the woman has had previous contact with the perpetrator, she can be made to feel that she is somehow to blame. If a woman has not resisted, it now seems that that can become evidence of consent. As mentioned, we saw an example of that in the rape case in Aberdeen, when Lord Abernethy, in an absolutely outrageous decision, told the jury that there was no case to answer. He ruled that sex without a woman's consent is not rape unless the attacker uses force or the threat of force. Does Lord Abernethy not realise that in such a situation a woman can be so frightened and so fearful of violence, and even of the loss of her life, that she will not put up a struggle? In the case of drug rape, she may not even have been conscious.
The Scottish judge, Lord Cockburn, stated 150 years ago that the essence of rape is that sexual intercourse is obtained without the woman's consent. Sir Gerald Gordon QC, the respected author of a standard textbook on criminal law, believes:
"It is simpler to discard the concept of force altogether and to define rape in terms of overpowering or overcoming the will of the victim."
Both men seem more enlightened than Lord Abernethy. Fortunately, the Lord Advocate has requested a report on the Aberdeen case and may ask the Court of Appeal to rule on the judge's interpretation of the law.
We know that the number of rapes reported remains the tip of the iceberg and that, of those reported, only 16 per cent get to court and only 9 per cent result in conviction. Women who have their drinks spiked and are subsequently raped are reluctant to report the crime. Women who are raped when not drugged are reluctant to report the crime. Women are told to be wary of strange men lurking in bars, but their attacker is most likely to be someone whom they already know. Women are told to avoid badly lit streets, to train in self-defence and to moderate their appearance. Why should women have to modify their behaviour? Women are not the rapists. It is the men who must change their behaviour and it is society that must change its attitudes. We do not tell pedestrians to take high-jump lessons so that they can leap out of the way of drunk or reckless drivers; we try to change the behaviour of the offenders. We should be sending out and reinforcing the clear message that male violence against women is unacceptable and that no always means no.
The Sturman report calls for a nationwide network of 24-hour sexual assault treatment centres, where victims can, under one roof, receive medical attention and counselling and make a statement to the police. We should seriously consider that proposal, which would make the ordeal of reporting rape and receiving treatment less traumatic for victims. We must create an environment where women can come forward in confidence, where women will be believed and where women will tell us what multi-agency services there should be.
As we know from research, the vast majority of women who are raped or sexually assaulted know their abusers. That is also the case with drug-assisted rapes. DCI Sturman's report on drug-assisted sexual assault was produced after interviews with 109 female and 14 male drug-rape victims. The report informs us that 70 per cent of victims knew their attackers and that 27 per cent of victims cited them as friends. Fifteen per cent cited attackers as fellow students. The report states that up to 25 different drugs—mostly types of tranquillisers, sleeping tablets and anaesthetics—are used.
After drug-assisted rape, most women are left with little or no clear memory of what has happened. They can therefore be reluctant to report the crime. Like other victims, they have a fear of being medically examined, of not being believed and of being questioned. The last is made worse by the possibility of the obscene spectacle of their attacker cross-examining them.
Until recently, proof of having been drugged was difficult to establish because the substance remained in the blood for only a few hours. However, I understand that new tests have been developed that can trace such drugs for up to 18 months after the attack. I feel that that needs to be highlighted.
If charges are made and the case goes to court, victims have to relive the whole horrific experience. They can end up feeling that they are the one in the dock. It is often implied that a woman has asked for it because of her dress, make-up, behaviour or sexual history. Two thirds of the drugged victims interviewed for the study that I mentioned said that they decided not to report the attack to the police because they were too ashamed or because they blamed themselves. Of those who reported what happened to the authorities, more than half felt that their treatment by the police was poor. Perhaps the police could learn lessons from their current approach to domestic abuse.
If the woman has had previous contact with the perpetrator, she can be made to feel that she is somehow to blame. If a woman has not resisted, it now seems that that can become evidence of consent. As mentioned, we saw an example of that in the rape case in Aberdeen, when Lord Abernethy, in an absolutely outrageous decision, told the jury that there was no case to answer. He ruled that sex without a woman's consent is not rape unless the attacker uses force or the threat of force. Does Lord Abernethy not realise that in such a situation a woman can be so frightened and so fearful of violence, and even of the loss of her life, that she will not put up a struggle? In the case of drug rape, she may not even have been conscious.
The Scottish judge, Lord Cockburn, stated 150 years ago that the essence of rape is that sexual intercourse is obtained without the woman's consent. Sir Gerald Gordon QC, the respected author of a standard textbook on criminal law, believes:
"It is simpler to discard the concept of force altogether and to define rape in terms of overpowering or overcoming the will of the victim."
Both men seem more enlightened than Lord Abernethy. Fortunately, the Lord Advocate has requested a report on the Aberdeen case and may ask the Court of Appeal to rule on the judge's interpretation of the law.
We know that the number of rapes reported remains the tip of the iceberg and that, of those reported, only 16 per cent get to court and only 9 per cent result in conviction. Women who have their drinks spiked and are subsequently raped are reluctant to report the crime. Women who are raped when not drugged are reluctant to report the crime. Women are told to be wary of strange men lurking in bars, but their attacker is most likely to be someone whom they already know. Women are told to avoid badly lit streets, to train in self-defence and to moderate their appearance. Why should women have to modify their behaviour? Women are not the rapists. It is the men who must change their behaviour and it is society that must change its attitudes. We do not tell pedestrians to take high-jump lessons so that they can leap out of the way of drunk or reckless drivers; we try to change the behaviour of the offenders. We should be sending out and reinforcing the clear message that male violence against women is unacceptable and that no always means no.
The Sturman report calls for a nationwide network of 24-hour sexual assault treatment centres, where victims can, under one roof, receive medical attention and counselling and make a statement to the police. We should seriously consider that proposal, which would make the ordeal of reporting rape and receiving treatment less traumatic for victims. We must create an environment where women can come forward in confidence, where women will be believed and where women will tell us what multi-agency services there should be.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Sir David Steel):
NPA
We now come to members' business. I appeal to members who are leaving to do so quickly and quietly so that we can proceed. The motion to be debated is S1M-13...
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the findings of the Home Office/Police Research Awards study on Drug Assisted Sexual Assault undertaken by DCI Peter Sturman of the...
Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab):
Lab
It is apt, in the light of this week's press, that we are having this debate on drug-assisted sexual assault. I say that not because I want to deviate from t...
Mr Gil Paterson (Central Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I thank Pauline McNeill for bringing this issue to the Parliament and I congratulate her on securing the debate and on the quality of the information that sh...
Mrs Lyndsay McIntosh (Central Scotland) (Con):
Con
I join in the congratulations to Pauline McNeill on securing the debate. I thank her for giving all members the opportunity to air our concerns about drug-as...
Elaine Smith (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab):
Lab
As gender reporter for the Equal Opportunities Committee, I have worked on issues relating to women and the justice system. That work was started by Johann L...
Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab):
Lab
I will address the issue of women keeping themselves safe. In a recent conversation with some young women of my acquaintance, I was struck by the way in whic...
The Deputy Minister for Social Justice (Ms Margaret Curran):
Lab
I congratulate Pauline McNeill, who must feel quite feted tonight. I want to add to what has been a significant debate. As Gil Paterson—who is to be congratu...
Meeting closed at 17:43.