Hansard

My name is Sandy Brindley. I have been a worker with Strathclyde rape crisis centre for around six years. During that time, I have spoken to a significant number of women who have felt incredibly let down by the legal system, which they believed was supposed to protect them after their experience of rape, abuse or sexual assault.

The number of women who report rape and sexual assault is very low. In the past year, of the women who contacted our organisation, 78 per cent did not report the incident to the police. Recent studies suggest that only 10 per cent of incidents of rape or sexual assault are reported by women. Moreover, only about 9 per cent of reported rapes lead to a conviction, according to the most recent figures.

In the past month, I have spoken to two women who are going through the criminal justice system, both of whom said that they would advise a woman who had just been raped not to report the incident. I also spoke to a female officer in a female and child unit—a specialist unit for the investigation of sexual offences—who said that if she were raped she would not report the incident.

Women who go through the criminal justice system experience the process as a violation. Women who have been raped spend around six hours in a police station, often immediately after the rape, which is a traumatic experience. It is likely that women will be examined by a male police casualty surgeon—they do not have the guaranteed option to choose to be examined by a female. If the procurator fiscal decides to proceed with the case, which does not happen in the majority of cases, women can expect to wait for up to a year for the case to be heard, with the court case hanging over them. During that time, in most cases, the accused is released on bail.

During the court case—if things get that far—women face aggressive cross-examination by the defence; that is fairly commonplace in rape and sexual assault trials. Women say that they feel very much as though they are on trial and that they go through with the process only on the slim chance of seeing justice done.

In recent years, significant improvements have been made in police responses to complaints of sexual assault or rape. However, in our experience, work still needs to be done to ensure a consistent, positive response, which should be based on good practice—for example, there is still a lack of female police surgeons.

Women also report that they have been threatened with the charge of wasting police time—indeed, some have been charged—if they decide that they cannot go through with the case, despite the fact that that may be due to intimidation by the defendant's friends or family.

The myth that women make false complaints appears to persist, which can lead some officers to approach interviews with women with a view to proving, or disproving, that they are lying. For example, it may be put to a woman who presents to the police with severe injuries that she simply regrets having had rough sex with her boyfriend. Such comments to women who have just been raped are still being made in 2000.

Concrete steps could be taken that would lead to a significant improvement of women's experience of police procedures. Some excellent recommendations were made in the recent Convention of Scottish Local Authorities document on violence against women, but we understand that few steps have been taken to implement those recommendations.

A further example that we want to raise on the police response to women who have been raped or sexually abused is that of women who have been raped by policemen and how the judicial system handles such cases. We are supporting two women in Scotland who have been raped by policemen and who have found it extremely difficult to access any form of justice. In our opinion, part of that difficulty is that, when a woman complains of rape by a policeman, the case is investigated by the force that employs that policeman. We would like a review of that procedure.

On the legal system, our view is that the common-law definition of rape does not reflect most women's experiences. The common law defines rape as

"carnal knowledge of a woman by a male obtained by overcoming her will"

by penetration of a woman's vagina by a man's penis. That definition excludes anal rape, oral rape and penetration by objects. In the case of women who are raped while sleeping, the law judges them unable actively to withhold their consent, which means that charges of rape cannot be brought.

The time leading up to the trial can be lengthy, with many delays. The amount of information that is given to women about the progress of their case is not consistent throughout Scotland. For example, in some areas of Scotland, a woman might not even be informed if the case is not proceeding. She might expect to go to court within a month, in order to meet the time bar of a year, as she has not been told that the procurator fiscal has decided not to proceed with the case. Women can experience powerlessness in the criminal justice process.

Women have described the trial in a rape or sexual assault case as like being raped again. In several recent cases that have received publicity, women have been cross-examined by the defendant—that is, by the man who raped them. We believe that that should not happen and that it is symbolic of the violation that women experience during such trials.

Sexual history and sexual character evidence is often introduced by defence lawyers in an attempt to discredit women's credibility and testimony. The Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985 introduced in 1986 the aim of limiting the use of such evidence. However, women still contact rape crisis centres to relate ordeals where defence lawyers introduce such evidence to discredit them. In 1992, the Scottish Office commissioned research that found that evidence on sexual history or sexual character was introduced in around half the jury trials of sexual offence cases. In a significant minority of cases, that evidence was introduced without reference to the legislation—that is, the legislation was breached.

The Scottish Office research provided useful evidence of what happens in rape trials. Talking about the need for education about what women have to go through, the research stated:

"Perhaps it should be generally known that the defence routinely try to besmirch complainers—"

that is, women who make complaints of rape—

"to call them liars, to bring in irrelevant evidence, to seize on any aspect of their sexuality that can be found, and to construct motives for false allegations".

Research and anecdotal evidence received from women who contact rape crisis centres gives a clear picture of the shortcomings both of the legislation on sexual history evidence and of the implementation—or lack of implementation—of that legislation in our courts. Clear recommendations have been made, which, as far as we understand, have gone nowhere.

We believe that there is a clear and urgent need for review of the criminal justice system as it relates to sexual offences. We have made recommendations on the steps that we would like to be considered as part of any such review. Those recommendations are in our written evidence to the Equal Opportunities Committee.

We believe that the Scottish Executive and Scottish society must take, as a starting point, the fact that 91 per cent of women who are raped or sexually assaulted and have the courage to report the incident to the police receive no justice and no protection from our legal system.