Remark by the defending barrister in a recent acquaintance rape trial

[Aspensquiver]

I was wondering if anyone else feels concerned, as I do, by certain comments made by the defending barrister in the recent rape case concerning a girl student whose alleged rapist, who was a fellow student, was acquitted. The barrister told the jury the girl had got back in bed with Sridhar after the alleged rape and, Joe Stone said: 'Surely if she was raped, the last place on earth she would want to return to would be that room.'

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12172708/Cambridge-student-found-not-guilty-of-rape.html There are also various other newspaper reports of stages of the trial which can be found on-line.

I understand the defending barrister had the duty to use all means at his disposal to get an acquittal for the accused. But allowed clever oratory at any expense aside - on top of the fact that most date rape cases will inevitably end in acquittal - it is chilling that such an erroneous, ill-informed and biased statement, might have added weight to the the jurors' decision and to the already confused public perceptions of rape cases like these.

I am not hoping to restart a discussion as to whether or not the accused was in fact guilty, but to question this remark, 'Surely....':

A victim's actual reaction to rape may be very counter-intuitive for a person who has not experienced it let alone for those who may doubt this sort of rape is rape in the first place.

There is no valid "Surely..." in the sense the barrister meant.

Jill Filpovic's article below paragraph 14 for example points out that rape victims may not react as expected.
www.cosmopolitan.com/college/news/a30507/sexual-assault-misconceptions/

In this article even the reaction of going on to have sex with the assailant a later point after the rape is shown to be a possible reaction in order for the victim to feel control. I believe it is also possible for the victim to try to act as if the assailant, who was after all known to her before the rape is in some way a friend so as to try to deny and block out the rape or minimise it. It is also possible for the victim to lose all sense of autonomy or will. I am aware there are three well known reactions to trauma: fight, flight and freezing. This girl may have remain frozen and unable to do anything.

As to all the details of the case it is difficult to be clear, but I believe the girl was in her own room into which the alleged assailant entered too after taking her back home after a night out in the town where they had both been drinking because she was worried about being alone in the town at night. After the alleged rape (presumably having got out of bed at some stage) it was her own bed in her own room she 'went back to'. Far from it being the case that surely this was the last place she would go, in these circumstances it may well be all too likely that this would be what she might do. Where else was she supposed to go other than her own bed? And in what sort of numbed and state of disassociation, or state of exhaustion or state of self blame was she after (allegedly) having been raped?
The next day certainly a friend of hers saw the girl in a terrible state of mind.

Why is it that a court case of this kind can take place without expert third party guidance being given to the judge and jury as to how a rape victim might behave? Instead it would seem that a false premise mooted by the barrister may have tipped the already weighted balance* even further on the side of acquittal.

*It is very difficult for a jury to pass a guilty verdict because there will usually be reasonable doubt in a case like this.

www.channel4.com/news/rape-convictions-myths-why-so-low-england

It's not just us lot in fwr that think this. It's been flagged as an issue within the profession.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-33823225

I didn't say pleasure (although some are so vindictive it obviously is for them). It's their job. It's what they're employed to do, and in the absence of consequences they say whatever they can get away with.

I doubt you'll find many, if any, rape victims who've been to court who disagree with what I've said. And we're the ones who've actually been on the receiving end.

It's a positive thing that a senior judge would give these warnings. I've never said that these things don't happen. I still believe the majority of lawyers do their best and act fairly. I can see however that given some posters experiences they won't accept that. I don't blame you.

I can understand that victims would say that Womanwithaltitude It's a horrendous experience for you to have gone through.

It is positive that the appeal judge made those comments.

But isn't it interesting that the barrister was allowed, in the original trial, to say those things? They weren't stopped by the judge. It wasnt challenged at the point it happened. It's almost as if it's standard practice to treat victims like that...

In light of things like that, you can see why the fact that barristers don't get counselling organised for them (nor do victims - you have to seek it yourself) doesn't elicit much sympathy.

Imagine having to prosecute or defend week after week of sex cases. It takes it's toll. I do still believe counselling should be available to them for this reason.
That in no way suggests it shouldn't be available to victims. Of course it should be.

I agree. But I'm still not going to feel sympathy for those barristers who use rape myths and character assassination in court, and I'm also not going to try and excuse or minimise their behaviour.

As things are, victims have to source their own counselling (and are often advised not to do so by the police as counselling notes may be disclosable). If a barrister feels that their moral compass is being affected by their work they can do the same. They are professional adults, generally far more privileged and less traumatised than the women and children victims they seek to denigrate in court.

And at least they know that their counselling notes won't be publicly torn to pieces in court by a despicable barrister eh? Which is more than victims can say.

I'm not seeking to excuse or minimise their behaviour either. I'm simply speaking up for the majority who don't act in the way you've described the barrister you encountered acting.
I should also add that the link you've provided relates to the Scottish system. I don't know anything about the Scots law, nor indeed know any Scottish lawyers so it's very hard to make an informed comment on the article.

Pirate, do you think an english judge would have clamped down on that kind of opening remark?

Sorry... are you saying there might be a possibility that the barrister's questioning was ok because it was in Scotland?

I know Scots law is different, but there is no planet where what he said would be ok or legitimate questioning. There really isn't.

Given that a 15 year old was recently called a bare faced liar in court I think we can reasonably conclude it happens in England too. And the judge didn't stop that.

I'd hope all judges would not allow any inappropriate remark Barefoot

Jesus. Of course I'm not saying it's ok because it's Scots law...

I'm glad, that's just what it sounded like.

I think your hope that English judges would stop that kind of thing is very naive tbh. I think that using rape myths is so embedded in normal practice in these trials that it passes without comment. At least that's what my experience was (with a female judge and female defence barrister in my case).

Pirate, on this point:

"They can only act on their client's instructions. "

What would the instructions be? "Make her look bad" or something more specific?

Much more specific than simply 'make her look bad.' Very detailed instructions would have to be taken from the defendant on every single aspect of the case.

That's not true.

My case was a stranger rape. The defendant didn't know my parents were separated. It came out in questioning and the barrister leapt on it as evidence that I was troubled.

The idea that the defendant dictates every line of questioning and every tactic used is just nonsense, sorry.

Unless she was hopelessly unprofessional the defence barrister will have taken very detailed instructions beforehand. The fact that she decided to improvise part way through because of something that came to light in your evidence doesn't change that. It seems like a bizarre direction for the cross examination to have taken to be honest and I can understand why you were upset the judge didn't disallow it.
Barristers are one of the most stringently regulated professions in the UK and there is ample advice about how to complain about them on the Bar Council's website. Was that ever pointed out to you womanwithaltitude?

I agree it sounds unlikely that the defendant would say, "open with you are a vile liar, OK?"

And if they did say that, shouldn't (a) the barrister refuse because of professional standards or (b) the judge stop it?

I think it could be helpful for MNHQ to get somebody to do a webchat about this. They could probably do a much better job of explaining the position than I am!

That wasn't the only example I could give. And no one else present thought that anything out of the ordinary or worth reporting anywhere had occurred.

The case she put was the defendant's version of events. It was bollocks, but fair enough. The tactics, including non verbal tactics like eye rolling to the jury while I was speaking etc - they came from her. She wasn't eye rolling and sighing because the defendant told her to. And no one said anything.

Equally, do you think the barrister a previous poster wrote about was instructed by the defendant to comment on the victim's current hair colour and weight? Most victims aren't even seen by the defendant in court due to screens (I don't know if she used them, I didn't but u understand that most do).