Tweet
Posted on September 25, 2002 at 17:42:53
The Guardian article that said that the Labour MP Julia Drown was going to make a speech about a bill she wanted passed which proposed changes to the rape laws to make it more difficult for rapists to use the defence that they believed their victims had consented was out of date when I found it and the speech had already been made. It was made on 16th July. So I wouldn't link to that in my main campaign article. However, Julia Drown actually sent me a copy of the speech she made in parliament about her bill, which is short and to the point, and so I'll put that on my website and link to it near the end of my campaign article.
The speech highlights the appallingly low conviction rate for rapists and the fact that rape victims are still humiliated in court despite legislation that was passed in 1999 to stop it happening quite so much. At the beginning of her speech, Julia Drown said:
"It is clear to anyone who has studied this subject that every year hundreds of rapists walk free from our courts. The victims are generally women, but a significant proportion of those in reported cases are men, and the conviction rate is only a tiny fraction of all rapes that occur. Only 10 per cent of rapes are reported and, of those, 7 per cent result in a conviction. So less than 1 per cent of all rapists are punished for their crime."
The main change in the law that Julia Drown MP proposed was that the rules regarding consent in rape cases are changed so that the responsibility is on the partner initiating sex to make sure that the other person agrees, rather than just supposedly imagining they do and getting away with that as a defence. Julia Drown MP also said in the speech regarding her bill:
"We are all brought up with prejudices around sex. To counter those prejudices, the Bill also states that the judge on each and every rape case where it is relevant must direct members of the jury that they cannot assume that the complainant did freely agree just because they did not say anything, because they did not physically resist, because they were not physically injured or because on an earlier occasion they had consented to sex with the accused or another person."
The speech also said:
"Despite the progress made by the Government in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, many rape victims are still humiliated in court, particularly when irrelevant sexual history is paraded before the court. The 1999 Act set out to address these issues. As a result, rape victims can no longer be cross-examined by the accused. Victims can be screened from the accused or give evidence on a video link, thus minimising the potential for intimidation in court by the accused.
The 1999 Act also intended to limit sexual history being brought into cases. However, as women's organisations and I warned at the time, because the defence of an honest, even if unreasonable, belief in consent was left in law, many rapists have been able to walk free. Where the defence is that the accused believed that the victim consented, if the jury accept that he might, however irrationally and crazily, have believed that there was consent, they have to acquit. That defence of honest but unreasonable belief in consent also leaves a loophole for sexual history to be brought into court, since the safeguards to protect complainants in the 1999 Act do not apply to the defence of honest belief in consent.
"It is well known at the criminal Bar that if claims about a woman's previous sexual history are brought up in court, the woman is likely to be humiliated and undermined and the calibre of her evidence is damaged. ...
"The Bill includes a non-exhaustive list of situations where free agreement could not be made. Those include: where a person submits or is unable to resist because of force or fear of force, or because of fear of serious harm to themselves or another person; where a person was asleep, unconscious or too affected by alcohol or drugs to give free agreement; where a person did not understand the nature of the act; or, where agreement is expressed by a third party, not the victim."
Julia Drown sent me an email in which she said:
"Because of a lack of Parliamentary time, the Bill will not make it onto the Statute Book in this form. However, the Government is due to publish a White Paper on Sex Offences in the Autumn and we need to continue pressing Ministers to make sure that legislation on reforming the rape laws is included in the Queen's Speech. Please [ask people to] write to their MPs, asking their MP to write to the Home Office, supporting the campaign and asking for legislation on reform of the rape laws to be included in the Queen's Speech. The more MPs who get involved in this issue, the more likely it is that we will see a change to the laws."
The Guardian article that said that the Labour MP Julia Drown was going to make a speech about a bill she wanted passed which proposed changes to the rape laws to make it more difficult for rapists to use the defence that they believed their victims had consented was out of date when I found it and the speech had already been made. It was made on 16th July. So I wouldn't link to that in my main campaign article. However, Julia Drown actually sent me a copy of the speech she made in parliament about her bill, which is short and to the point, and so I'll put that on my website and link to it near the end of my campaign article.
The speech highlights the appallingly low conviction rate for rapists and the fact that rape victims are still humiliated in court despite legislation that was passed in 1999 to stop it happening quite so much. At the beginning of her speech, Julia Drown said:
"It is clear to anyone who has studied this subject that every year hundreds of rapists walk free from our courts. The victims are generally women, but a significant proportion of those in reported cases are men, and the conviction rate is only a tiny fraction of all rapes that occur. Only 10 per cent of rapes are reported and, of those, 7 per cent result in a conviction. So less than 1 per cent of all rapists are punished for their crime."
The main change in the law that Julia Drown MP proposed was that the rules regarding consent in rape cases are changed so that the responsibility is on the partner initiating sex to make sure that the other person agrees, rather than just supposedly imagining they do and getting away with that as a defence. Julia Drown MP also said in the speech regarding her bill:
"We are all brought up with prejudices around sex. To counter those prejudices, the Bill also states that the judge on each and every rape case where it is relevant must direct members of the jury that they cannot assume that the complainant did freely agree just because they did not say anything, because they did not physically resist, because they were not physically injured or because on an earlier occasion they had consented to sex with the accused or another person."
The speech also said:
"Despite the progress made by the Government in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, many rape victims are still humiliated in court, particularly when irrelevant sexual history is paraded before the court. The 1999 Act set out to address these issues. As a result, rape victims can no longer be cross-examined by the accused. Victims can be screened from the accused or give evidence on a video link, thus minimising the potential for intimidation in court by the accused.
The 1999 Act also intended to limit sexual history being brought into cases. However, as women's organisations and I warned at the time, because the defence of an honest, even if unreasonable, belief in consent was left in law, many rapists have been able to walk free. Where the defence is that the accused believed that the victim consented, if the jury accept that he might, however irrationally and crazily, have believed that there was consent, they have to acquit. That defence of honest but unreasonable belief in consent also leaves a loophole for sexual history to be brought into court, since the safeguards to protect complainants in the 1999 Act do not apply to the defence of honest belief in consent.
"It is well known at the criminal Bar that if claims about a woman's previous sexual history are brought up in court, the woman is likely to be humiliated and undermined and the calibre of her evidence is damaged. ...
"The Bill includes a non-exhaustive list of situations where free agreement could not be made. Those include: where a person submits or is unable to resist because of force or fear of force, or because of fear of serious harm to themselves or another person; where a person was asleep, unconscious or too affected by alcohol or drugs to give free agreement; where a person did not understand the nature of the act; or, where agreement is expressed by a third party, not the victim."
Julia Drown sent me an email in which she said:
"Because of a lack of Parliamentary time, the Bill will not make it onto the Statute Book in this form. However, the Government is due to publish a White Paper on Sex Offences in the Autumn and we need to continue pressing Ministers to make sure that legislation on reforming the rape laws is included in the Queen's Speech. Please [ask people to] write to their MPs, asking their MP to write to the Home Office, supporting the campaign and asking for legislation on reform of the rape laws to be included in the Queen's Speech. The more MPs who get involved in this issue, the more likely it is that we will see a change to the laws."
Comment