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 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.

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

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

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.

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....

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Yes. Of course that's right Palmer

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?

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.

(Btw Eilish Angionlini's report is about the police rather than the courts, I referenced it because Pirate brought up the issue of what a victim walking into a police station can expect to experience. It's very much worth a read though.)

Yesterday, at 00:35, I posted:

Not all barristers are immoral, but enough of them are, and the courts let them get away with enough nastiness to ensure that women are put off reporting and trials are heavily influenced by rape myths and character assassination of the victims.

So now we're clear that NABALT, shall we actually discuss the very real and ongoing problem of how victims are treated in court, and the use of rape myths and bullying tactics by defence teams?

Or shall we continue to focus on what Pirate's mate says about how it hardly ever happens because defence teams are, like, really nice people whose primary concern is for the victim, and all those cases you see in the news and in reports are just weird aberrations?

My 'mate' isn't someone I just met on the street. They are doing a sex case as we speak, they did one last week and one that lasted for several weeks the case before that. They are at the coal face so to speak. It is a shit job and they are trying their best. That is the only point I've ever wanted to make on this thread and I've been attacked endlessly for it. Fair enough.

I dont give a monkeys who your mate is or how you know them. There is sufficient evidence in the public domain, from victims, from experts in the field, from media reports and from those conducting formal reviews into courtroom practice, that what you are claiming (that poor behaviour is 'dying out' for example) is clearly not true.

I said that NABALT yesterday. I have never said they're all scum. What other point are you trying to make, other than repeatedly insisting that there isn't really a problem?