So what would need to happen for women to report rape and get convictions?

are there figures on how many reports there are?

It's making me feel cross that there are so so many women and girls sitting round tonight worrying about whether the legal system actually exists to protect them at all. It's our country too FFS

IIRC the Home Office estimates 2000 women a week are raped. So what those figures show is that the legal system procedes in one week's worth of rape cases, in a whole year.

BTW what is the definition of "proceded against"?

nancydrewrocked wrote - "These cases nearly always result in acquitals, not because the evidence does not exist but because the jury has apparently adopted something of a pragmatic approach."

Can you give some examples of "something of a pragmatic approach" please?

that is shit, gig

I think the police could start off by ensuring that the people who deal with rape victims are not only "trained" as they always say they are, but have actually learnt something and have been tested on their interview techniques and reactions. Training too often IME just means "sitting in a room and being talked at".

Anyfucker - the barrister was intimating that she knew he would be coming over and so wore deliberately provoctative undies.

they were bog standard pretty patterned pants

the poor girl was utterly mortified.

Yes the conviction rate is comparable.

What is not comparable is the reporting to charge rate and charge to prosecution rate.

One would expect the CPS to "cherry pick" - that is one of their primary functions and on a positive note at least they carry out an audited process within a strict legal framework.

What concerns me is the number of cases that don't get off the ground at even the investigation stage. Or perhaps even more seriously those that are purportedly investigated but with the outcome already decided.

The conviction rate is comparable with other crimes, isn't it. Although I dread to think how much the CPS are "cherry picking" IYKWIM.

I agree with you nancydrew that the attitude of the police and the initial evidence gathering are the first hurdle. If women knew that they would be treated with respect and belief, and offered counselling, and the crime would be treated seriously, that would be a start.

I mean with warboys women were going into the sapphire unit and saying they had been raped, and were being laughed at and disbelieved. It's all wrong.

I suppose the problem is that it's a difficult crime and the public and political will just aren't there to do any better

Following on from barristermum's comments I think the reality of the role of a juror is far more complex than simply weighing up guilt/innocence.

I have certainly prosecuted (and in fact defended) many cases (of all variety) where the evidence is overwhelming but for various reasons there is clear sympathy for either the defendant and/or regarding the crime charged. These cases nearly always result in acquitals, not because the evidence does not exist but because the jury has apparently adopted something of a pragmatic approach.

smallwhitecat just to note CC Judges are not drawn exclusively (by any means) from the Criminal Bar. It is entirely possible to appear in a serious criminal case before a Judge who has never practised criminal law in his life.

My twopennath is it is not the Court system/defence lawyers and judiciary that are the problem. It is a misogynistic police force who make inappropriate decisions as to guilt at an early stage and investigate (or not) accordingly (see Gail Sherwood) and a woefully inadequate CPS, staffed by lawyers who are at best overworked and at worst incompetent.

Just seen this on the news. If things like this didn't happen, and the shambles with warboys and reid, and all of the cases that you hear about police mishandling. I think that would go a long way towards women feeling more confident about reporting rape.

Yes, a view I was born with and which has in no way been formed by my experiences or reading :o I do know a few judges all of whom happen to be very comfortably off white middle class men. Some lovely, some not so.

Glad to hear things are changing though.

Like the judge who sentenced that Welsh woman to 8 months you mean? I wouldn't trust an overwhelmingly male wealthy privileged judiciary with it.

barristermum wrote - "people even if satisfied the facts are against the defendant, sometimes may not convict because they are sure it won't be done again"

I am assuming that by "people" you mean jurors, as I believe it is their role to assess guilt. Your post gives me the impression that the jurors have found a rape defendant not guilty because they feel a guilty verdict would ruin the rapist's life "unnecessarily".

I thought jurors were supposed to decide the verdict only, not the sentence? I thought the sentence was determined by the judge after the jury's verdict?

Aren't jurors only supposed to decide guilt of a defendant's past, not predict his future? Are juror's given any legal advice on this by the judge?

Is rape the only crime for which jurors have the authority to predict whether a defendant will re-offend? I thought that was the role of the judge and parole board?

If jurors find a rape defendant not guilty for any reason other than the evidence of whether he committed the crime or not, is that perverting the course of justice (a crime in itself)?

I've defended women for sexual assault, not actual rape.

I've never cross examined about sexual history as in saying that history made it more likely she would have consented. In some cases the prosecution have left in parts of a video interview where a complainant talks about it but if prosecuting I would almost invariably edit that out myself.
I have covered limited sexual history - for instance if with the same partner to discuss reasonable belief in consent, or if alleging there's been a false allegation made against a previous partner

Good god, barristermum, your posts are really showing how bad the situation is.

I can't believe juries really let rapists off because they are worried about the consequences these men will suffer. Except I'm afraid I can believe it. What about the victim FFS?

It really does come down to the fact that society thinks that rape/sexual assault is an occupational hazard of being a woman, and is something men are entitled to do to us.

You know I think I would take the law into my own hands were some entitled piece of shit ever to have a go at me or my DDs.