To worry about the Judges attitude in Levelle Verdict.

[daiseehope]

I believe I need to state that this man has been found not guilty of all charges etc. I am an abuse victim who is taking a case to court. AIBU as apparently the Judge stated to the Jury prior to deciding that the sic "manner and appearance of the alleged victim and how she appears to you is vital". I don't think that's right.

Basil, yes, he was wearing a suit, never spoke in his own defence and his barrister made much of the fact he was working with disabled children. He got 2 years, and some of my fellow jurors blanked me as we were leaving. The photos of the injuries were awful. I dread to think what some jurors have to look at.

TerryParatchett I said I hope not that it would happen
Jeez when will people learn to read!

Why does this have to be such a divisive issue ffs? Does everyone feel like they have to take a single standpoint? Can you not put your politics to one side for 5 seconds?

Sometimes innocent people's lives are blighted by false accusations.

Sometimes guilty people get away with crimes.

Both situations happen. Life is shit, but there you are. Take the fucking blinkers off.

What Chotter said.

Didn't think this thread was about politics tbh. I guess in this particular case you have a pov that he is guilty, not guilty, or such cases could be handled much better by the media....

I have to say I was absolutely convinced that she was telling the truth. But my husband just told me that she claimed full sexual intercourse had taken place but her hymen was still intact. I've checked this and it's true. That is pretty damning. Although the doctor concerned said that as children don't really know what intercourse is they can mistake attempted or simulated intercourse for full intercourse.

The whole thing is so sad, it's terribly upsetting.

That's what I don't get though. Nobody here was on the jury, so how can you have a pov that is based on anything other than pre-conceived ideas?

Hello, I started the thread not to question the verdicts, but to ask if I as a future "accuser" ABU to worry about the Judge's direction regarding manner and demeanour of the girl. I worry that fewer will come forward to tell TRUTHS because of this case and the vitriol. I worry that my case is less likely to proceed.

To the OPs original point, we all like to flatter ourselves that we are intelligent and perceptive enough to be able to tell if a person is telling the truth from their demeanour. years of practising law have taught me that that is bollocks. Some people are just very very good at lying. Others appear incredible and dishonest even when telling the truth. Unless you have good knowledge of a person's character and behaviour and are yourself free of unconscious bias (and who among us could say that) a judgement of their credibility is no more than a random guess.
For me, if a complainant's evidence was broadly consistent, knowing what I know about how vile the process of bring a rape allegation to court is, I'd have no difficulty in convicting. No-one puts themselves through that process without jolly good reason, unless they are mad.

Whilst the overall conviction rate in sex crimes is low, 71% of rapists who go to court are convicted here.

Apologies OP, your thread had become derailed somewhat.

I think that you are making a very good point, the judge should not be bringing appearances into the argument here. Although without knowing exactly what he meant its hard to say more.

To my mind, it reminds me of the disgusting stereotype that just because a woman wears a short skirt she's "up for it" or because a victim was drunk "she deserved it"

If course he may have meant that the victim didn't appear to be upset, or she didn't appear traumatised or some such thing. Like I say, perhaps she did not appear tone a credible witness.

I can see why the manner of someone giving evidence may cause attention (if someone was inappropriately smirking etc) as this may undermine their evidence.

I hope all goes well with your case, and that you get all the support you need through this time.

daisee I don't think you should worry. As someone said upthread It's hard to work out the context of the Judges' comment without the full statement. Judges advise and Instruct on matters of the Law and aren't allowed to bring Emotion into It etc so some of the things they say can be a bit jaw dropping to a Layman but I'm assuming It has some relevance for him to have mentioned It as they would on the Defendants' Character for example. I remember doing my training at University and having to repeatedly tell the 'Judge' in the 'Case'. "With all due respect the Witness is not the one on trial here". Please don't lose faith in the Justice System OP. As others have said there is huge differences between the Levell case and others. I know I've already wished you luck but I wish you strength to get through these times too.

correct boozy, and interestingly while the procedure allowing victims to give evidence from behind a screen was introduced to help them, I know that many criminal barristers have reached the conclusion that if the jury can't SEE the victim, they are more likely to acquit because they form less of a connection to them.

The jury could see her.

The screen shields her from the accused and the gallery. The judge, barristers, and jury could all see her.

I see nothing wrong with the judges line (obviously my opinion could change if the rest of the charge gave greater context) but most cases will include similar sentiment in their charge.
Witness testimony is direct and real evidence, how they appear in the dock and give that evidence will inform the jury.
Jurors in deciding whether or not they've been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt will often do so on what witnesses they found to be credible.

All the judge has done is reiterate the jurors role and on what grounds they are allowed to base their decision.

That's the problem the OP is pointing out though.

Rape victims are required to behave in a way which distinguishes them as rape victims.

If they're don't behave in the way popular myth says rape victims ought to behave, then they are held to be not really rape victims.

Is that what you are getting at OP?

i was involved in a not dissimilar case to the lv one and the judge specifically said to discount urrent 'demeanor' or words to that effect

To go back to the OP, I think the instruction to the jury was very odd. However, presumably it made sense in the wider context of the case.

It is interesting that Keir Stamer (director of public prosecutions) believes there was a case to answer and there was enough evidence to go to court. news.sky.com/story/1140266/le-vell-trial-right-decision-to-prosecute

I do think those being prosecuted should be named, as it can help show how widespread the abuse is, and encourage more victims to come forward.

I think there is a lot more to this case than the public will ever no. Hopefully, the verdict reached was the correct one.

I think our justice system is woefully inadequate at dealing with rape cases, regardless.

I think that judges should not be directing juries that the manner and appearance of the alleged victims of rape or sexual assault is vital in coming to a conclusion about whether they are in fact victims, unless those jurors have first been educated out of the rape myths most of them will either consciously or sub-consciously hold.

You still get cases of people saying things like: "she was too calm - she couldn't have been raped - if she had been she'd have been hysterical" or "she was a party girl, always up for it - not the sort who gets raped" etc. I don't see how there is ever going to be justice for rape victims while most people hold these sorts of views and judges go along with it. If juries are going to be directed to take into account the victim's manner and appearance, then they need to be educated about how rape victims' manner and appearance is in reality rather than in popular myth before they are allowed to sit as a juror on a rape trial. While they're about it, they could also be educated about how a perpetrator's manner and appearance may differ from that of popular myth.

Most rapists are acquitted, not charged or not reported. Focusing on victim's manner and appearance ensures that status quo continues. Which is excellent news for rapists.

cantspel haven't had time to read whole thread, but felt I must comment on 'how can a mother not know her 6 year old has been raped'
My best friend was one of those mothers. She walked in as an older boy was raping her five year old son anally. She actually saw the boys penis in her little boys anus. The family then went through years of horrendous court cases, and the case was 'paused' due to the older boy being jugded mentally incompetent. There was never any physical evidence found, even though her little boy told her he had been being abused for some months prior to her walking in on them. He was groomed by the older boy into silence. It happens.

There was no actual forensic or medical evidence in the levell case, so the only thing that the jury have to base their decision on is the verbal evidence provided by the alleged victim and her mother - therefore the demeanour of the alleged victim is crucial to the case and the judge should direct the jury to its significance. The judge didn't pass any negative or positive comments about her demeanour: he simply told the jury to consider it.
I don't really see how the jury could reach any verdict other than not guilty as there was no actual evidence that anything had taken place. The original CPS decision to drop the case was probably right given that there was very very little chance of a conviction and any conviction would have been swiftly appealed due to the media influence on the case. The CPS only decided to reopen the case and charge Levell after the alleged victims mother had made a complaint against the CPS - that isn't a good enough reason to charge somebody seeing as the evidence (or lack of) hadn't sufficiently changed. Two medical experts (one from a specialist rape crisis centre) stated in court that the victim showed no signs of sexual abuse or rape and it was possible that she was still a virgin; how could we realistically expect to convict a man of raping somebody who still shows signs of being in virginal state.
We rightly don't know the identity of the alleged victim or the full details of the case so don't know whether there were any grudges or reasons for a malicious allegation or whether the victim has any history of mental illness etc.
I am disappointed that the rules have not been changed to allow anonynimity to the accused in sex abuse cases until a conviction has been secured as people's lives get ruined even when they are innocent. By all means hang, draw and quarter them once a conviction has been secured but hold off the media circus until that time.

"how could we realistically expect to convict a man of raping somebody who still shows signs of being in virginal state"

It's actually very hard to tell, you know. Virginity tests (ugh) are not at all scientifically reliable.

"no actual evidence that anything had taken place"

Victim testimony is evidence and it's not uncommon for abusers to be found guilty on victim testimony alone. Clearly that didn't happen here (for whatever reason), but it doesn't mean the CPS were wrong to bring the case.

But the medical evidence in this case was that there was no sign of injury to the girls hymen. So to not have damage it must be still there which must be strange if she had an adult male rape her at least 5 times since the age of 6.

trash sorry about your friends son. But if he was abused by an older boy rather than a fully grown man then the physical damage could well be un noticable due to the fact that the abuser was still not fully developed.

Clearly the head of Manchester CPS didn't think there was enough evidence for a conviction as he dropped the case. It was only when the alleged victims mother made a formal complaint that a more senior legal adviser decided to reopen the case against advice that there was not sufficient evidence.
If it becomes the case that we can bring people to trial without forensic / medical / other physical evidence and purely on an alleged victims testimony then we will have a lot of innocent people being dragged through the court system and huge legal bills for cases with no real prospect of conviction.
We need to have some certainty that a person has committed a crime before convicting them and if I was on a jury then I would need more than one person saying he did it and the other person saying that he didn't do it.