Remark by the defending barrister in a recent acquaintance rape trial

Maybe you should think about people who have been attacked and may be reading this? We all have a responsibility towards them to give them a completely fair and accurate account of what they are likley to experience if they were to walk into a police station today and make a complaint.

Are you for real? So now I am failing in my rresponsibility to encourage other victims to report? This is a despicable thing to say.

Unlike you I actually know how victims are treated by police and the courts. What I say is based on what I have personal experience of, what my ISVA (who supports rape victims in court for a living) told me of her experience, the various reports into the problem (Eilish Angiolini's report from last year is worth a read and is pretty damning), numerous reports in the media quoting appalling behaviour by defence teams etc...

What you've been saying is based on absolutely nothing.

I don't think all barristers are scum and I never said that. But you know that don't you? You're just resorting to making stuff up.

I'm sorry, assume I'm thick, you know, like you're doing anyway, and be good enough to explain what you meant by that last comment?

Yes. Of course that's right Palmer

Pirate, you might not be intending to belittle a victim of a serious violent crime on this thread however, whatever your intention, that is how you are coming across.

That is ridiculous Blue Utterly, utterly ridiculous and a massive shame because it detracts from the important issue we are talking about here.

Honestly Pirate I think you need to re-read and reflect on your posts. Your last post says - if you get your kicks from attacking me that's fine, I'm not easily intimated.

That felt very uncomfortable and unsettling to me, you inferred that she was being irrational and aggressive and that it was directed to you.

Considering the the entire point of the post is how the views of women and victims are undermined by professionals who deem them to be irrational, unreasonable and out of control it very much felt that you were replicating that process.

Oh for gods sake. I am not trying to belittle her.

Pirate, I personally think that attempting to belittle a woman who has experienced the things she is speaking about, when you are speaking anecdotally is a bit off.

However, if it makes you happy so to do, then have at it. Don't expect a rapturous reception.

Woman has not said that barristers are the scum of the earth, it's interesting that you're projecting that meaning onto her words though. What she has said is that, in her case, and in the case of most other women, defence barristers behave in the way she has described.

I'm sure though, that if what you're saying about how things are changing is correct, the Johnson's defence brief will be roundly censured, by the prosecution brief, the judge, who repeated the slurs made against the child victim and by the criminal bar.

As you're so much more in the know than the rest of us, I'm sure you'll be able to point us in the direction of this censure.

Woman clearly isn't attacking you for kicks Pirate, and I think you know that.

I have said explicitly from the onset on this thread that my position is simply to say that not all barristers act in the way that people have complained of on here. Read my posts Woman and you'll see that's true. I have not denied or minimised the problem. I have said that thankfully, the DPP and senior judges are now trying to address the problem.

I have experience of the court system (not too much in crime) so I am not the complete innocent you are making me out to be but if that makes you feel better then fine. Your position Woman is that barristers are scum of the earth, all out to deliberately debase and humiliate them. Your 'evidence' is no less anecdotal than mine, and as I have said ad infinitum on here one person who is treated like this is one too many. Maybe you should think about people who have been attacked and may be reading this? We all have a responsibility towards them to give them a completely fair and accurate account of what they are likley to experience if they were to walk into a police station today and make a complaint.

Finally, if attacking me gives you your kicks woman fine but you are wasting your time because I'm not easily intimidated

The problem here is that women don't report, and one of the major reasons they don't report is the way women are treated by the police and by the judicial system.

We have had police officers tell us on threads on this part of the forum that they and their colleagues take a 'women lie' stance from the beginning and that women have to prove to them that a crime has taken place. Any discrepancy in statements is taken as proof they are lying.

Regardless of pilot schemes, women are still treated appallingly in court. Fgs, children are treated appallingly in court, the more that's coming out of the Adam Johnson trail, the more aghast any normal person must be at how the victim was treated by his brief.

Rape is a repeat offence. Recidivism rates are high. It's a gendered crime. Until we as a society do something about the situation within our justice system, we can't call ourselves an equal society, or even anything close to it.

Basically the current DPP thinks theres a problem, the former DPP thinks there's a problem, Rape Crisis teams who deal with victims think there's a problem, victims who've been to court think there's a problem.....

But you don't think there's a problem because your mate says so, and you've spent a whole thread arrogantly insisting on that.

You don't have to explicitly say it. You are disregarding my knowledge,

You are wrong Woman I am extremely sorry for what happened to you. It is unforgivable.

You don't have to explicitly say it. You are disregarding my knowledge, Keir Starmer's, and all the other evidence in the public domain (of which there is lots) because your mate says its 'dying out'. It's bloody offensive.

Have you read how the very young grooming victims were questioned? That was recent and the info is out there. You seriously need to educate yourself.

Tell me where I've said I don't believe you womanwithaltitude ?

More of the pilots:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-34455558

Again - "so how should I describe you, victim or mistress?" is aggressive and designed to wrong foot the complainant, make her defensive and probably less lucid as a result. It isn't "Are you are the defendant's mistress?", is it?

Frankly, I don't know of you're naive or stupid or both, but your comments are offensive because you are consistently refusing to accept the evidence of what goes on from people who know much more about what goes on than you.

'Dying out', my arse....

And I'll say again, as you seem to have missed it, YOU NEED TO LISTEN TO THE ONES WHO'VE ACTUALLY EXPERIENCED THIS STUFF when deteremining how good the system is and whether poor practice is 'dying out'. Not the professional defence briefs who treat the complainants like shit.

Too much to ask? I don't think so personally.

Pirate - my case was in 2015. This stuff is really not 'dying out'.

Yes. The reasons why victims don't come forward are complex. I myself know that from experience.

It's good that things are changing, Pirate: as you can see from Keir Stamer's comments and the fact that the pilots were deemed necessary, change is overdue.

Some victims may be coming forwards - very many are not.

I've done a bit of asking around about this and found out that there is now a pilot scheme in two regional crown courts where barristers have to run their questions past the trial judge before they examine a witness in a sex case. Apparently, anything that is unfair, aggressive etc will instantly be disallowed. I've also been told that the aggressive style of questioning is now 'dying out thank god.' Basically anybody who uses this type of questioning is viewed as a bit crap anyway and the direct quote was 'I treat witnesses with decency and respect. You get more out of them that way as in life.' This is from somebody who does a lot of sex cases. They told me that all the courts at the crown court they are appearing at we're dealing with sex cases which is because thankfully victims are still coming forward.

Powerful stuff from keir Stamer.

I have never heard from a rape victim who's been through the trial process and felt it was all reasonable. Keir Starmer pointed out the problems two years ago:

"For many victims the adversarial journey through our courtrooms is such an ordeal that most vow never to repeat it. The way some victims and witnesses in the sex-grooming trials were treated makes very uncomfortable reading for any politician, lawyer or judge. When, as prosecutors, we approached some of the victims in those cases to give evidence in subsequent trials, the response was pretty well unanimous, and very clear: in capital letters in a letter to the CPS, the message was literally "fuck off". They would rather the perpetrators went free than repeat the exercise."

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/03/britain-criminal-justice-system-victims-law-public-prosecutions

But yeah, let's keep telling ourselves it's inevitable and reasonable rather than listening to those who have experienced it, or those who are experts and know that we need to see changes, like Keir Starmer.

It is entirely possible to challenge the complainant's account and highlight inconsistencies without promoting rape myths, slating their character in a manner that has nothing to do with the actual evidence and using bullying and intimidation tactics (verbal or non verbal).

You shouldn't have to be the 'perfect' rape victim to be assured of fair treatment in court and have a fair chance of getting justice. After all, you don't have to be a perfect victim for other crimes, including those where it is the offence rather than identity that is disputed. (Rape is far from being the only offence where that can be the case)