Raped and now my case has been NFA'ed

Having watched Prima Facie at the cinema the other night this doesn’t surprise me.

Enraged and impotent were my overriding feelings watching it.

It’s a phenomenal performance by Jodie Comer if you are able to watch it.

re lack of sufficient funding for court system:

https://metro.co.uk/2024/12/05/one-five-rape-cases-dropped-complainants-waiting-years-trial-22121169/

So more a legal case about injuries, almost without referencing rape?

I thought, but this is just from memory, that some rape court cases are presented as not just about whether it was rape, but if proven (ie jury persuaded) that is an additional charge in relation to injuries.

Something similar to non fatal strangulation (I think its called) as a specific violenct act in relation to domestic violence.

Hopefully someone with more legal knowledge could explain how that works in practice in law.

Just to repeat a lot of what is happening or not happening in rape trials is about ordinary people's attitudes. ie as just repeated up thread, if juries have the sort of attitudes that think consenting to sex is consenting to violence, then this is why rapists aren't convicted.

And many in the "justice" system know this.

So effectively cases are dropped, not because they think they aren't valid but they doubt a jury will convict. A jury is working on personal judgements not the law. That's why some want rape trials to be juryless.

And the element that both the CPS and police want their record of convictions to look good.

So the controlling element in public attitudes.

What is worse is not just that members of the public, not only dont believe women, but even if they do they think a man's future career is more important than a woman getting justice.

Not helped by the huge back log in all cases going to trial because of court closures, staff issues etc., means that this too put pressures on the police and CPS to just go for open and shut cases.

Bullshit. This does not work for rape, hence why rape convictions are so low, it is not remotely fair or just when it comes to sexual abuse. It's amazing how the same thought process doesn't apply in other circumstances - 'well you've claimed you were burgled, but you've given things away before and you're pro charity, so how do we know you didn't willing give your TV away?'
The fact you think a text undermines her case shows the problem withsociety's attitude to rape.

It shouldn't be that a text consenting at one point covers everything from then on. It's not how consent works, it needs be constant and evolving. It's such a shit system for victims. It's important you told the police though as next time he'll have had previous. Probably doesn't make you feel better now though. I'm so sorry you're going through this.

I’m so sorry this happened to you. It’s really hard when something of such importance to you is decided by someone else. I assume they feel there is not a sufficiently strong enough level of evidence to get the case to where they’d expect a trial to get it to the “beyond a reasonable doubt” line - it’s such a high bar. Rape cases are a bloody nightmare, especially if there's been previous relationship, no independent witnesses, and nothing useful on phone, paper etc. It ends up being he said she said sadly, and juries are mega cautious.

Not the same circumstances as OP's situation, but another aspect of the failed justice system.

https://rapecrisis.org.uk/news/crown-prosecution-service-unveils-new-measures-to-improve-service-to-victims-of-crime/

I support rape and domestic abuse victims at court. I believe you OP as I have believed all the victims I have supported. I have been in court with many women in rape trials and have witnessed what they have gone through. Cross examination can be brutal. In certain circumstances the Defence can argue for access to therapy notes. If allowed these are often used against the victim. The Defence's job is to introduce an element of doubt in the Prosecution case . Juries are instructed that a guilty verdict should only be arrived at if the Prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The CPS in your case has determined that your texts could constitute reasonable doubt. Also the jury will only hear the particulars of the specific case and will not hear about any other cases of a similar nature the defendant may have committed. This would only come out at sentencing in the event of a guilty verdict.

I have to say CPS case workers and barristers I have met are very supportive of victims and really do want to do their best to secure a conviction. Judges have training to deal with sexual abuse and domestic abuse cases and have to have a 'ticket' to try these. So I am not sure it is a universal truth that because most judges are men therefore cases are not heard sympathetically. In fact the most seemingly unsympathetic judge I have witnessed was a woman.

My view is that the problem lies in society itself. Juries often comprise people who hold misogynistic attitudes or lack understanding of the notion of consent. Also the the composition of juries needs to be considered. My heart sank in one case I supported when I saw there were 10 men on the jury and my fears for the victim were justified . Any woman, unless a vestal virgin can have their sexual history in terms of texts, letters etc used against them. Look at the case of Ched Evans.

I really understand your anger and distress OP. . I feel angry on your behalf. But in pursuing this I would urge you to consider whether you are feeling strong enough and realistic about potential treatment at court and possible outcomes given CPS decision not to recommend prosection.

I really worry about girls and women (and some men, they get raped too). I saw a recent statistic that the largest proportion of reported rapes came from 14 year olds. The availability of online porn, revenge porn, perpetuation of misogynistic stereotypes with regard female sexuality all mitigate against a reduction in these crimes.

I write to MPs , Jess Phillips, give donations and support charities that support rape and DV victims. 1970s feminists like me thought we could change society but sadly some men and boys still see women and girls as objects of sexual gratification and abuse. This needs to change, starting with education at home and school.

Whatever you decide OP, I wish you luck and healing. I believe you.

@NotAScoobyDoo2 I was reading this article about the Pelicot case - her lawyer said sheer indignation drove her forward.

This is very different, but even there they were going to argue that she consented (ffs.) I can sense your indignation, and I would be the same.

If it failed I'd then be writing to anyone in the media and everyone and shouting about it from the rooftops.

www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/03/gisele-pelicot-lawyer-depravity-never-seen-anything-like-it

Sending strength 💪

I think we need to follow Iceland’s tactics and all women stop all work - including paid work, childcare, caring for elderly, etc, cooking, cleaning, etc for 48hrs.
The planet would unravel.

I agree that attitudes are getting worse. Maybe it’s because there are so many more people (I was raped in the 80’s)… Maybe the internet creates communities of incels who justify their behaviour and share support and advice… I don’t know… I’m grateful phones and internet weren’t a thing when it happened to me. As for the new laws in Aus, our judges are all aged white men, so excuse me for being cynical about the likelihood of them being adhered to… Also, we had a rape in Parliament House covered up and ignored. The perpetrator was accused of multiple cases by multiple women and very well protected and he walked free with a very large government pension. I have no faith at all that we are evolved here.

I know there's been talk of the juries being specialists in the field.

RASA therapist was saying exactly this to me today. Juries are made up of average people with pre conceived ideas and pre judgements and no specific training and it's wrong that they just pull in 12 essentially random people to make such huge decisions. I think it should change.

Kindly- who would have told you about the Act when you've said you don't have an ISVA? As the victim in a Police investigation there's no reason they'd talk to you about law.

I would assume that being higher up they would be able to have a say in some of this. Why are they never asked or consulted? It's weird.

Because the problem is the Juries.

Rape Crisis and many other groups have been trying for years to raise awareness, and on one level have got (some) police and the CPS to recognise their male focused approach of the past harmed and let down women.

But they can do nothing about juries.

ie this is about the great British public and their attitudes.

And as said upthread, even when a jury thinks a man is probably guilty they care more about the impact on his career / reputation than they do about women being believed, and make sure the guilty man is punished.

As I mentioned up thread, there was a campaign to get rape trials to be jury less, but when Scotland tried to do this is got rejected.

Another suggestion was to mak juries who were going to be part of a rape trial, under go training / awareness.

So often when cases are not put forward for trial it is because both the police and the CPS know that the evidence in a case is the type of evidence a jury will not convict on.

It would almost be better, if this is what they are doing, that they make a public statement that they think there is a case, but based on actual trials they think a jury wont convict.

Instead, because in terms of them being monitored they want their stats to look good, so they only put forward "open and shut" cases ie meaning cases that an anti woman sexist jury will convict on.