What will be the impact of Judge led trials on women who are victims of sexual violence

[IwantToRetire]

There is of course the issue of is this a good idea generally.

But also what will be the impact on women who have been victims of sexual violence.

For all any of us know it might work in women's favour because it is said juries are reluctant to find a man guilty of sexual violence as a conviction could impact his employment prospects. No bothering about the woman who is the victim of his crime!

As far as I can make out rape trials would still be heard by a jury but "sexual violence" would by Judge only.

And domestic violence perpetrators?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/swift-and-fair-plan-to-get-justice-for-victims

Image of charts from https://news.sky.com/story/the-crimes-most-likely-to-be-decided-without-a-jury-under-new-justice-reforms-13478456

Related

Crucial reforms to give rape victims a fairer trial
Rape victims will receive better support and fairer trials under new government reforms to stamp out rape myths and restore faith in the justice system.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/crucial-reforms-to-give-rape-victims-a-fairer-trial

Maintaining jury trials is critical to women survivors’ access to justice – Rights of Women
https://www.rightsofwomen.org.uk/maintaining-jury-trials-is-critical-to-women-survivors-access-to-justice/

I don't know whether trials without a jury would be better for rape victims. But removing the right to trial by jury for a swathe of offences is anti-democratic and a sweeping constitutional change for which there is no mandate, for which reason I oppose it (for what my opposition is worth!). I think we should go back to the Lord Chancellor being a judge instead of any MP the PM fancies to name - which cannot be more impartial! Tony Blair made this change to cuddle up to the EU which object to the Lord Chancellor turning up to meetings where everyone else was a Minister of Justice, apparently (why they objected, who knows?).

As I understood it any charges that would result in a 3+ years jail term would remain as jury trials. Surely this would cover most, if not all, cases of rape and sexual assault?

From articles rape cases yes.

Sexual assault no.

But what is really bad is the bag log is as much if not more about not enough money has been invested in keeping Courts useable, and other basics building upkeep. And staff.

So the judicial system (which doesn't always worked) is being rejigged because various Governments couldn't be bothered with doing basic maintenance.

Lammy branded 'cynical' amid claims MoJ used 'innacurate' rape case figures to fast-track scrapping of jury trials
https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/lammy-branded-cynical-claims-moj-used-innacurate-rape-case-figures-to-fast-5HjdP4z_2/

I hope this isn't true, but just a way of trying to undermine Lammy because they dont like him, rather than caring about the situation.

I am no Lammy fan, but surely even he wouldn't be so stupid as to make up figures.

Would he?

For all any of us know it might work in women's favour because it is said juries are reluctant to find a man guilty of sexual violence as a conviction could impact his employment prospects. No bothering about the woman who is the victim of his crime!

Research of actual jury trials in England and Wales is effectively prohibited and much of the research which does occur uses techniques such as mock trials, most of which are methodologically problematic. So, we don't know much about how and why juries make their decisions in practice, and many of the assertions made about jury outcomes are difficult to substantiate (and, indeed, sometimes difficult to track down to source).

We do know that jury trials are more expensive, and more likely to acquit the accused, and even return what is technically known as a "perverse verdict", where juries ignore judicial direction, to return a not guilty verdict. The periodic pushes from government to get rid of jury trials are less about improving the judicial system, and more about exertion of control by the state; this in itself is not a reason to support the abandonment of trial by jury.

It removes the right to trial by jury for many offences. The right to trial by one's peers is a pillar of our democracy and a protection against the government. This government - like Mr Blair's - is bent on illiberal tinkering with the constitution. We already have a Lord Chancellor who is appointed at the whim of the PM, rather than a lawyer who is not part of the government though he could attend cabinet. That was a change for the worse because it has put the Judiciary - a separate arm of the state from the government - under the control of the government via an appointed minister. Removing jury trial for some offences (those with a sentence of 3 years +) is a short step to removing jury trials for many more offences (in the interests of efficiency), which is dangerous.

I'm cynical if I'm honest. There is an infamous judge in Ireland for handing out the most pathetic sentences for violence against women and children. Most judges as middle to upper class, white and male. At least with a jury you have the chance to have a mix of biases.
Although I do think that juries need to be given specific education prior to cases like SA/DV because of the misinformation and biases that exist.

Today's judgment re SP demonstrates the issues for women when it's a judge with an often known history of sexism.

Family court is just a judge and you get no justice or protection there as a woman trying to protect your children

From Rape Crisis England and Wales:

We are aware of the strength of feeling around this announcement. The vast majority of criminal cases in England & Wales are already progressed in Magistrates’ courts, without juries. However, for some types of trial, juries can play an important role in our justice system. They allow for a diverse range of perspectives and life experiences to be brought to decision-making, which is important when it comes to discrimination - in particular racial biases - and many believe they can safeguard against judicial over-reach.

Balanced against this, however, is that the current system is failing rape and sexual abuse survivors, and doing so profoundly:

• The Crown Court backlog is increasing every month, with over 13,000 sexual offence cases currently waiting to be heard.
• 17% of all cases in the backlog are currently sexual offence cases.
• A third of all rape trials are postponed at least once, with some delayed six times or more.
• 1 in 5 (20%) adult rape survivors withdraw support for a case after charge, with many citing the backlogs as the direct reason for doing so.

Sexual violence survivors wait longer for a trial than victim-survivors of any other offence type. And every year, Rape Crisis England & Wales and our member centres speak to thousands of women whose experience of the criminal justice system is anything but fair, safe, or just. They repeatedly and consistently tell us that the torment, distress, and disruption caused by delays, cancellations, and a myriad of other factors both retraumatises them and undermines their confidence in the criminal justice system. As one survivor told us: “I wish I’d never bothered.”

https://rapecrisis.org.uk/news/reforms-to-the-criminal-justice-system/

They go on to talk about other alternatives, but it is shocking that this change isn't based on legal arguements, but what sort of make do system should we have because like so much else in the UK, not enough has been invested to even keep a just about coping court service running.

They'll be fucked because it's a bunch of men with no concept of anything.

See Family Court bullshit.

Women can also be stuffed by misogyny either way.

A jury who does not want to ruin the life of a man they see as valuable, and do not really believe her or see the wreckage of her life as equally significant,

A judge with deeply ingrained sexism.

The issue is the misogyny both ways, and that too has powerful roots in the abuse and sexual violence women suffer. I'm very worried about letting go of this safeguard however bad the backlog is, it opens the door to more and worse issues and mistakes for women rather than addressing the ones already there.

I don't understand the argument that juries are 'undemocratic'. There are plenty of judicial decisions already made in the UK without juries. Most of Europe, which on the whole has purer democracies than our anachronistic shitshow, has far fewer jury trials than we do. If we do ditch juries for some cases, that'll be a decision by a government that was elected by a landslide last year (of course, I realise that comes with a big asterisk now).

I don't think the primary motivation is connected with rolling back civil liberties. Anyone who has any experience of the criminal justice system knows it's in a state of total administrative failure. We can't truly divine the intentions of politicians but I find this a simpler and more plausible explanation.

I would like to see rape trials tried by panels of judges, rather than individuals, for reasons others have given on this thread. I would also like to see such cases tried by all-woman panels, which should give a better chance of convictions (indeed, I'd like to see more women in the justice system more widely - the bar, the CPS, the police). I doubt any of these things will happen, of course.

I would also like to see such cases tried by all-woman panels, which should give a better chance of convictions

Interesting, but (and maybe its a myth) it is said that it is women as much if not more so than men, who dont like to convict a man of rape as it is "unfair" for him to have his future tarnished by a "mistake".

But such a large part seems to be the failure to invest in the court system.

Why cant we have night time trials?

Why cant they repair the court houses that have been shut because they haven't been maintained?

Why cant we have "Nightingale" Courts?

Yes, rape and other violent crimes are explicitly excluded from Lammy's plans. I think they're a bad idea but they do NOT apply to rape.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy7vdvrnnvzo.amp

Family Courts are horrible. More journalists hopefully one step to reform.

I remember reading awful experiences some posters here have had with Family Courts. They sounded appalling on child custody.

Yes, I'm fed up with the narrative that courts favour women more. I really don't think that's generally true

Juries are totally different from other democratic structures too. Imagine if Parliament was composed of entirely randomly selected people and for them to get anything done they all had to agree, but all their deliberations were done completely in secret with no public record or accountability. Would we be celebrating what a wonderful democratic system that is? It sounds more like a farce out of Alice in Wonderland to me.

Well. He thinks men can grow a cervix, so 🤷‍♀️

After he came out with that gem, I find it can't believe anything that comes out of his mouth.

I was a jury member and saw this happen in real time sadly. The victim was not believed and the man got off. I won't go into any details as probably legally, I can't, but the jury members were unable to critically think (for various reasons) and in the end it benefitted the sexual assaulter and not the victim. I hope never to be called again as it really impacted me, for weeks.

I would trust a judge more than 12 randoms off the street