The report is about 200 pp long, so it'll take a while to read.
Here's some extracts from Beira's place submission:
'Here's some quotes from the submission from Beira's Place's submission:
On 'not proven':
'At Beira's Place, we are aware of Rape Crisis Scotland’s research on the
impact of the ‘not proven’ verdict, which is used disproportionately in
rape cases (44% of the time, compared to 20% of the time for all crimes
and offences in 2019-2020). The ‘not proven’ verdict in rape cases was
deemed as having the same traumatic impact on the victim/survivor as a
‘not guilty’ verdict (Source: https://tinyurl.com/yc5wvm9e).
The ‘not proven’ verdict is unclear, there is no specific definition
for when it is to be used, (so much so that the High Court has actively
discouraged judges from expressing views or explaining the ‘not proven’
verdict to jurors (Source: https://tinyurl.com/35v4zdb4) and this is
mirrored in jurors’ beliefs around when and how the ‘not proven’ verdict
should be used. It generally appears that jurors believe that ‘not
proven’ means ‘guilty, but not beyond reasonable doubt’.
We are concerned that the existence of what are essentially two acquittal verdicts is unfair on victims of VAWG crimes; but we are equally concerned that the absence of a ‘not proven’ verdict might sway more jurors towards a ‘not guilty’ verdict. Many service providers who provide direct support to women, children and young people affected by VAWG crimes discussed the extremely traumatic impact of a ‘not proven’ verdict, equalling a ‘not guilty’ verdict – especially given the lengthy waits for a trial and the burden of proof required for a case to reach the Court.''
On juror numbers:
'Beira's Place considers the move from a 15 to a 12-member jury to be a
positive one. We expect that this will simplify the process of
recruiting and selecting jurors, in turn enabling the court process to
move more swiftly and effectively. We also believe that the number of
jurors per se is less likely to change the outcome of a trial as
indicated by research findings that ‘Jurors in the rape and assault
trials showed no significant difference in the proportion of rape trial
jurors favouring guilty or acquittal verdicts by either the number of
verdicts available or by jury size’ (Source:
https://tinyurl.com/4b5kdjbx).
On juryless rape trials:
'We are concerned that piloting judge only trials will not have any marked impact on justice for survivors of rape and other sexual offences, since the main issue appears to be that only 7% of report get to court. This option only serves to fudge the main issue that complainers do not get justice. The question is why are thousands of survivors prevented from getting their complaints taken seriously?
The argument that judge only trials for rape could improve conviction rates, is based upon the supposition that jury decisions in rape trials are impacted by rape myths. RCS paper on judge only trials states that, “Juries can be influenced by ‘rape myths. These are deeply ingrained views about what ‘real’ rape is or how a ‘real’ victim would look or behave .”
We know that rape myths are pervasive among the public. Studies have been carried out on these beliefs over a number of years with many of those myths, such as believing that victims were in some way responsible for the rape because they didn’t fight hard enough, didn’t run away, had been drinking/taking drugs, hadn’t reported the rape immediately, had a previous relationship with the perpetrator, continued to follow the perpetrator on social media, being almost impossible to shift. We also know that jurors are members of the public and will therefore carry these beliefs into the court room with them. This is not in dispute. The question is whether dispensing with juries for rape cases will improve conviction rates, given that only 7% of reported rapes ever make it to the courtroom, and thousands of victims each year do not feel that they can ever report to police.
On 31st May 2023, Lady Hale spoke to the Scottish Legal News about the proposed changes to the trial structure and highlighted her concerns about them. The article stated:
“She suggested that the issues surrounding rape and other sexual violence cases could be traced back to decisions taken much earlier. These include factors such as police actions, the quality of police investigations, and the proper maintenance of evidence.”
Any frontline worker who supports sexual violence survivors who have been through the justice process, knows that the kind of response survivors get from justice agencies is a lottery. Survivors have spoken about:
• Giving evidence to police of other witnesses who could possibly corroborate their story (for example about being too drunk to give consent) which was not followed up.
• Being questioned repeatedly while the perpetrator was not questioned, or even approached by police, even though he was known to the woman and his name and address were provided.
• Being asked “are you sure it’s just not something that got a bit out of hand?”
• Being told “you’re a big strong girl, you could have fought him off.”
• In the case of a learning-disabled child, the officer asked her parents “does her disability mean she makes up stories?”
• In court, a young woman fainted after giving evidence for several hours and when she came back into the witness box after being brought round, was asked about the course she was studying – which was drama. The implication being that she was acting.
(all of these examples come from rape crisis support or advocacy workers)
Sexual violence, and abuse are predominantly private crimes and there is extensive evidence to show that most sexual offences are committed by someone known to the victim. The need for corroboration under Scot’s Law means that the level of evidence required by COPFS to help them decide on whether a case can be taken to court, is high. Sexual violence support services know from experience that having two independent sources of evidence is usually not enough for COPFS to be satisfied that the case will be successfully prosecuted and with the perpetrators commonly using ‘consent’ as their defence, the requirement for additional, independent sources of evidence increases, which can be particularly difficult in cases of historical sexual offences.'