R-word apologists on jury service. I am scared now.

[keepingmum121]

This is only in AIBU because the thread that inspired it is also here.

I have reported a 'R' against me a few months ago and the process of the investigation is very trying (to say the least).

Now I am absolutely terrified that if this goes to court, there might be people on the jury with similar opinions as some people on that other thread (I hope you know which one I mean).

Do you know, are the jury told in NO uncertain terms what the definition of R is before proceedings commence? Are there efforts made to eliminate people who excuse the man who did it for stupid reasons?

I'm scared :(

Hello OP,sorry if I worried you.

Please don't assume your cross-examination would be long, or as long as mine. My evidence concerned very different circumstances, as I said.

Oh, I just thought of another question:

If anyone from the public is permitted to sit and watch, they won't be able to see me but will they hear my name? What if there is someone who knows me?

I have told a small selection of people about this but other people (including family) must never know. Even the people I have told, I don't want them to attend with me. It is all way too humiliating.

The public can attend; that includes the defendant's family. They can hear your voice; whether they can see you depends on the layout of the courtroom. If you don't want the people you have told to be there, ask them not to and don't tell them the date.

Sabrina No matter how much care is taken: if the defendant is on bail he and the complainant both have to approach the same building through the same public streets and the possibility of an encounter is there. If he is in custody she may still encounter his family and friends. It does nobody any favours to promise more than can be delivered.

To be honest, I am confronted with him (at a distance) every week at least as it is. He is bailed not to approach me nor speak to me, but I am used to constantly clapping eyes on him.

Will the public hear my name? That's what concerns me.

Yes, I'm afraid they will hear your name.

But the public are his family and friends if they are there, and they probably know it, and - perhaps - a few random odd-bods who are killing time in the public seats at the local Crown Court who will not be interested. If the press are there, which is doubtful these days, well, as you know, they can't report your name.

Trust the jury as everyone else does. You might yourself be on a jury on day and I am sure you would be able to do your job.

Don't worry about your name being heard, you have nothing to be ashamed of. It's the perpetrator who should feel shame. Hold your head high!

Thing is, I do feel shame. I should have seen the signs of what he was like. Plus, I should not have done what I did on the consensual occasion. I had no intention of getting into a relationship any time soon so I acted kind of slutty.
I just feel embarrassed to think of them raking over my bad choices. Also discussing my private parts and what was done to them! Eugh! It is horrible!

No no no! It is not your job to ensure that this man does not break the law.

You can have consensual sex - that doesn't mean you consent to anything in the future. There is no such thing as 'slutty' - you are a person and you have the right to consent to sexual activity each and every time. You have he right to refuse sexual activity at any time.

Sabrina is so right in her previous post. Was this man acting "slutty" as well when you had consensual sex? Women get called "slutty" where men get praised or admired - it's a horrible double standard that puts women down whilst praising men.

You had no reason to know that this man would actually cross a line and act illegally. It's not your responsibility to prevent him from being illegal. The situation you were in is one that any woman (or person) would encounter at the start of a possible relationship. At some point, you have to trust the other person. It doesn't matter how serious you intend the relationship to be, or how long you take before you get to that point.

I do think you're being incredibly strong at the moment, even though you probably don't think you are.

HE is the one who broke the law, HE is the one who should feel shame.

You are not at fault in any way and your past, sexual encounters with him or anyone else, is irrelevant.

You did not deserve this.

There are various reasons I feel embarrassed/ashamed. I do realize that he is at fault for the attack (but I am certain he doesn't feel ashamed, otherwise he would have confessed and apologized)
First, I hate that i didn't see the red flags quickly enough, or at least didn't attach as much significance to them as I should have.
Second, I hate that such clinical details of what happened to me and my private parts will be discussed. It'll feel like more violation in a way.
Thirdly, I do feel bad that I had sex with him without loving him or being ready for a relationship. He was very keen for commitment so somehow his actions that first time don't seem so inappropriate to me. I shouldn't have used the word 'slut', but that is what I meant.

Sadly, my previous sexual history is very much to do with it and I have been told that they need all my medical records and for me to tell what happened to be in the past.

Happened to me (not 'be'). Sorry for typos.

It makes me very cross that previous sexual history of the victim has anything to do with the case. It just doesn't matter, and has no bearing on whether a crime was committed. Whether a person is celibate or having sex with a different person each night, neither deserves to be attacked.

Please don't feel embarrassed for having sex without being in a committed relationship or being in love. It's not wrong or shameful, and it is also very common. So many people have sex just for fun with people they know they aren't in love with and aren't in a committed relationship. It might grow into that, or it might not, which is all absolutely fine.

I can only imagine how you must be feeling about having to discuss the exact details in court. I think that is something that a counsellor could help with, to find ways to cope with it. Would it help to focus on any anger you feel toward this man, and use that to get you through the telling of the details? Maybe a bad idea, I dont' know, hopefully some people on this thread might have some more useful suggestions.

Hi.

I've been in your position, although it was 10 years ago now and things may have (hopefully!) changed.

The things I found that most difficult were having never met the person who was representing me (or representing the CPS, which ever it is), I was given no opportunity to speak to him before hand. Also, I was given no preparation or support at court. I had no idea what sort of questions would be asked, where I was supposed to sit, etc. So it might be worth seeing if you can visit the court before hand and get some idea of what your prosecutor is going to ask you. I would've found that useful.

The defence questions weren't to bad. They definitely tried to trip me up (I would ask to reread your statement before hand too). They mainly let me answer simple questions, until he got to a specific point - he had said a certain word to me, and after he asked me to confirm that part of my status he hit me with "my client has a speech
Impediment and couldn't possible have said that to you. What else are you lying about?"

It would've been useful to have been prepared on how to answer those questions.

I was also unprepared for the fact that people could sit in court and watch. People he knew, family and work friends. Also, I didn't realise, they they could call people to discuss my character and previous behaviours. Hopefully they no longer do this, I don't know.

I would suggest keeping your answers short and to the point.

"Do you think your behaviour led him on?"

"I don't think so.."
"Not really"
"I didn't mean too"

All give him the chance to carry on badgering you. Stick to 'No' or 'Yes'

Back then, there was no segregation at break times. I had to eat lunch with him at the next table. Hopefully that's changed too.

I found it easier to pretend I was in a TV show, just playing a part. I tried to detach from it as much as possible.

I don't want to sugar coat anything as being unprepared was the worst part of it for me.

This was a Crown Court, maybe each one differs.

HJG that sounds awful :(. Can I ask what the outcome was for you?

I just wanted to say you are very brave, well done because he should be brought to justice. Your thread title was very sensitive - I knew exactly what you meant because I have a similar problem with that word. x

I'm in Scotland, and have been present at rape cases in the past through work (not a lawyer). In any case I've attended involving sexual offences, the public gallery is cleared and the witness can request a screen so he/she can't see the defendant.

So only court officials, the jury and the defendant are present whilst the witness/victim gives evidence. Not sure if the the same applies in other parts of the UK but I would check out whether the public galleries can be cleared when you take the stand.

I would disagree with the PP who advised responding to defence questions with "I've already told you that/as I've already said." Don't say anything that could be potentially interpreted by a jury as being a bit of a smartass, no matter how irritating or repetitive the questions seem to be.