AIBU to think rape is now legal in the UK?

I know this is an old thread but I think this should be clarified.

Under Swedish law, rape required proof of penetration of the vagina.
Because the girl used the word 'snippa', the court said it could not be certain beyond reasonable doubt that penetration of the vagina had occurred rather than touching inside the vulva area.
Because the prosecution had charged only rape, the court said it could not instead convict him of sexual assault of a child, which has a different legal definition.
So the rape conviction was overturned.
The ruling caused major controversy in Sweden. Many people argued the court had interpreted the word too narrowly.

It's still a terrible situation but it doesn't mean the court thought nothing wrong had happened.

That's the police for you @monsteramunch.

Its a very badly worded sign, but consider this

It depends if it has been a historic report of rape. Some people report rapes that have happened years/months ago. They were not ready to report before - but are now. If that's the case, they will be outside of the forensic window.

Some victims/survivors also prefer to report it by writing it down rather than phoning it in. I think that they should be given every option to be able to report it by any method they feel comfortable with.

The notice is not saying that all rapes have to be reported this way - but they can if the victim/survivor feels that this is a better way for them to do it.

There are lots of reasons why victims/survivors may find it easier to report on line and not via a phone call.

They may be in a controlling DV relationship and not able to speak openly on a phone.

They may not want to talk about it on a phone call with a stranger, but prefer to write it themselves

They may live in a care facility and not be able to speak openly in the premises - especially if the suspect is on the care staff

They may be a school pupil who doesn't want to make a phone call from home (suspect may be living at their address). Also can't make a phone call from school in case they are overheard.

I think its good that we can give them an option of how they want to report it.

I agree that it is badly worded - and if it is within the forensic window it should be an emergency. We always deal with them as an emergency when they are reported - and then develop the investigation strategy after this.

So for example the 13yo girl who was raped by Sean Hogg - if she went to the police station and saw this sign, you expect her, a traumatised survivor of rape, to understand how the rape she went through has to be reported, as emergency vs non emergency?

Of course rape is a horrific crime. It is also notoriously difficult to get a conviction in some cases, due to the nature of the crime. But I think it's a misunderstanding to say this poster means the Police downgrading the its impact. What I think they mean is that you don't report rape which happens yesterday by dialing 999 and expecting a blue lighted Police car to attend. there would be no point and it could mean that the woman who was dialling 999 at the sae time from the actual scene of a crime was ignored. The Police are extremely underfunded, so are the Courts. But as long a some people bame the wrong sector for the problem, it stops anything getting improved.

Even if the law hadn't changed, 4 years for raping a child would still be disgusting

WTAF???!!!

That is shocking and terrifying. Why do the SNP hate women so much?

@DdraigGoch - that looks like a very particular Scottish issue. Alarming because it looks like someone effectively changed the law on sentencing without changing it. They wrote a new guideline. That's not law. Something is happening in Scotland where the SNP are abusing their power.

I'm not saying it's not bad in England, but Scotland has just changed its sentencing law so that punishment isn't an aspect for the under 25s. This guidance will apply to all of those under 25, sex offenders, rapists and violent offenders.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65164041

Rape is now de facto decriminalised in Scotland.

I am very sorry to hear what has happened and I am part of the process trying to increases the conviction rate and get as many perpetrators behind bars.

So, forgive me if I didn't say it before, WeeWillyWinkie9, but it must have been an horrendous thing that you had to experience and the treatment you got by the police sergeant was not acceptable. I hope you complained and they were sacked.

As I said before - We need to listen to the survivor/victims more. What do they want from the investigation

The quota you referred to is not a police thing - which is why I have not experienced it and i have certainly not been told to 'not crime' a rape as it takes us over the quota

From reading the article, it appears that the quota is part of the CPS threshold of which cases to take to court. They will only take the ones which have a realistic prospect of conviction.

Do you think it would help that all reported rape cases where the victim/survivor wants to proceed, should automatically be heard at court?

But what happens to the cases where there is overwhelming evidence against the prosecution case?

Do we need to consider a closed court - so the victim/survivor is cross examined by the defence solicitor in a private room away from the court - perhaps done on another day. This can then be transcribed later to the court during the trial.

Many people doubt it so it shows an air of that with the attitude. I've been forced to show his confession before now and been called a liar so this is mild in comparison to the abuse I've had by saying what happened so it was water off a duck's back.

Thank you though for showing them how to respond in a decant way and thank you for your kind words.

Your reply to a poster sharing their experience of rape isn't very empathetic or kind tbh, instead it's formal and cold. A 'sorry to hear what happened to you' or similar would be a better reflection of the victim centred approach you say you take IRL.

To the poster, I really am so very sorry you went through that and that justice wasn't served. It's awful

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50406598

The rate is low as that is the number of people convicted against how many report.

Where is it documented?

If that was the case - why is the conviction rate as low as it is?

Yes he should but the police excused it and said that because he stopped eventually then what was my issue and also I had to expect it now with 50 shades of grey. They also recorded their own answers to thing when I was too slow to answer in my distress.

There is a quota that is well known for rape cases. Sadly it means that they investigated less to raise the % convicted. Take 10 men to court and convict 1 then that is a 10% rate. Take 2 men to court and convict 1 then that is a 50% conviction rate. It is well documented that this is a thing.

There is definitely that - they don't want to relive it through the courts and they don't want the additional trauma. And I have suggested ways in which this might be made a little easier for that process to happen.

But a lot of cases, they just don't want to go down that route. They would be quite happy to go to court if they needed to - but for them, the fact that the suspect has been arrested, medically swabbed, interviewed, spent 12 hours in a cell is enough for them. After that, they just want to move forward with their lives as best they can.

Other times, they just don't want to report anything other than the fact its happened. Its enough for them to have it recorded as a crime and to know they have the option to go back to it if they wanted to.

For my part - I will try and encourage them as best I can to get a conviction and get the perpetrator locked away, but I will not put any pressure on them to do this. And what ever route they choose, I will respect their decision and support them as much as I can.

Are they truly 'content'? Or are they weighing up that regretfully stopping there is less bad than adding additional trauma and stress to their lives. Maybe if the process were made less traumatic, these women would continue to persue justice.

When was this? - he should not have been NFA'd if he admitted it?
I take it you gave a statement etc etc

There is no quota that I know of - and every rape which I have crimed gets investigated and not written off due to a quota

I was raped and he confessed. The police excused his actions. So even with hard evidence the police dismiss it. Many people say it is because of the lack of evidence, this is wholly untrue. It is down to a quota that was used to raise the conviction rate that means most who report are dismissed as the police know it'll just get NFA'ed because of the quota.

This is how it has become the most legal illegal thing - like driving at 71mph, you're never going to get done for it.

You need to encourage people to report it - otherwise you don't get a true reflection of what is happening and effectively statistics will show that rape doesn't happen.

The justice process is traumatic - that's why a lot don't want to put themselves through it. And often these victims/survivors are more 'content' that the person has been arrested/interviewed and the victim/survivor has been believed and has been given the support they need. But they don't want it taken further.

Or they just want it reporting, but are not ready yet to say who it involved or where/when it happened.

All of these will go down as an undetected/non-prosecuted rapes and will be an undetected crime

But should the statistics reflect this decision made by the victim/survivor more?

I wouldn't bother changing the test. I wouldn't even encourage a woman to report it. The actual process of justice is traumatic from start to finish. Too often it is a man as a victim, not the actual victim. That is reinforced at pretty every stage if you bother to report it.

The reason for this is that society is very misogynistic - there were two officers last week convicted of sexual assault. Both had excellent records but clearly, they regarded women as lesser beings. Its not unreasonable to think even if they kept their mouths shut day to day, they too would have just regarded a woman's vulnerability as something a man could prey on. They would accordingly believe in "regretful sex".

Should the legal basis change from - 'prove beyond reasonable;e doubt' to 'balance of probabilities'?

Should juries be taken out of the decision process?

My ex worked in the criminal justice system. He told me that every rape case he saw was the woman wanting revenge. That was my warning right there.

He is a very good liar, very believable and I know there's no point at all in trying to report him. My dead son should be the proof I need but it still boils down to my word against his.

He got away with it all, he's swanning about playing the big I am, being lauded by so many as the great guy he appears to be, but he's just a weak little man who has to rape and abuse in order to feel adequate.

The Ched Evans case had to be appealed to let this evidence in. That effectively reintroduced the "she loved it, regretted it later" aspect so common to many defence cases.

It's a factor from top to bottom from the moment it's reported to if it ever got to court. Our society does not believe women when they say they have been raped. I use the phrase "regretful sex" because it's apparently what some top level officers in the Met think rape is.