First national independent legal advice service for rape victims to be led by Centre for Women's Justice

[Imnobody4]

A very welcome development
https://www.centreforwomensjustice.org.uk/updates/centre-for-womens-justice-to-deliver-first-ever-national-independent-legal-advice-service-for-victim-survivors-of-rape-and-sexual-violencenbsp

Centre for Women’s Justice is excited to announce that it will be leading the delivery of a new national free Independent Legal Advice service for adult victim-survivors of rape and sexual assault. We will be supported by partners Rape Crisis England and Wales and Victim Support.

The service will provide specialist, independent legal advice to victim-survivors about their rights within the criminal justice process. It will support them in relation to issues such as excessive personal data requests, Victim’s Right to Review and police investigations that fall below expected standards. The scheme is designed to help those who decide to report to the police understand their options, make informed decisions, and access clear, wholly independent legal advice at key stages of the process. While we anticipate that the overwhelming majority of service users will be women, the service will also be available to male survivors.

This is a government service not a charitable one.
Government launches new national Legal Advisors service for rape victims and expands Operation Soteria into the courtroom - GOV.UK https://share.google/yzpv22jDsHe3DHBzd

The new Independent Legal Advisor service, backed by initial funding of £6 million over two years, will provide rape victims with specialist legal advice throughout investigations and prosecutions.
CWJ have been chosen to lead it because they developed and ran the pilot on which it is based.
I think a scheme which excluded male victims would have fallen foul of the EQ Act. 2 separate schemes would increase costs.
Should CWJ have refused their expertise?
Personally I think it's a necessity and in the best interest of women.

Well that's totally different framing from the original article. That implied it was a charity-run service with some government backing, not a government-run and -funded service.

The CEJ statement about not having 'previously applied' for government funding implied that in this case they had applied for funding to run their own project - which would normally be partial funding, with the rest the resources coming from the main charity staff and funding streams.

If it is fully resourced by government, and the charity are simply supplying expertise (and being recompensed for their time) then it may well not breach their charitable objectives or be detrimental to their main service. If that's so, then great.

If CEJ accept the funding stream at it is they who lead it, just with any other funding stream that a charity accepts it is an activity governed by charity law, and must be within the scope of their objectives.

From the link you have shared (thanks), the project that the CEJ is undertaken is part of a bigger project running across multiple, public and charitable sector partners.

All good. Since the CEJ are lawyers i am going to assume that they will function, only within their objectives, but want to satisfy myself that this is the case.

i am just wary as well that the word hypocrites could be thrown at us.

I agree although I posted yesterday that as it is Government funded there would be strings attached, but from the announcement it says

These measures form part of the Government’s wider plan to halve violence against women and girls within a decade, ensuring victims receive the justice and protection they deserve.

So on these basis of this initial statement it implies it is part of acknowledging that women in particular are the main victims of sexual violence.

So wonder at which point those applying the funding were told (informally) they are more likely to get money it they aren't just a single sex service, or at which point the groups who came together thought they would go against their own existing practice of single sex services. ie RCEW & CWJ are already doing this (with I think WGN)

Also interesting to note that this concept is as a result of campaigning by RCEW and after lobbying adopted by Labour (under Starmer)

After years of campaigning by RCEW and the wider sexual violence and abuse sector, the promise of a national Independent Legal Advice service was included in the 2024 Labour Party manifesto and forms part of the Government’s Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) strategy.

Is this Labour saying of course we support single sex services (so long as men also benefit).

It's not really a single sex service though. It's part of the criminal justice system aimed at ensuring fair trials in rape cases.
The evaluation report of the original CWJ pilot recommended it was extended to all rape victims.
static1.squarespace.com/static/69ce2e0f6fcae1199cca3cec/t/6abe75266c90152504de3ca4/1790866726852/Legal+Advice+Evaluation+%28Final+Report%29.pdf

It should not be a single sex service. How it is delivered and by whom is the issue

Centre for Women’s Justice is excited to announce that it will be leading the delivery of a new national free Independent Legal Advice service for adult victim-survivors of rape and sexual assault. We will be supported by partners Rape Crisis England and Wales and Victim Support.

Who do you think should be leading it instead of CWJ? They are the one's who designed and delivered the pilot. They are doing it as an independent project to keep it at arms length while they still pursue strategic litigation against the gov CPS etc.

I have had a reply from a CWJ solicitor to my e mail which confirmed that they will be delivering direct services to male victims.

in the context of the e mail it sounded like they thought i was a male victim.

anyway i have now made a compliant as that are in breach of their own objectives.

I am not having any of it, female only services bending their own rules to meet with commissioning objectives that do not recognise sex based services is my issue.

This is what happened to Edingburgh RCC, and more besides.

So just to be clear - you are now actively campaigning against a service to provide specialist legal advice to rape survivors because it also provides that specialist legal advice to male survivors. There are no words.

Oh put your pearls away.

As usual ALL the rape services are running to pander first and foremost to the group you think are the most special humans in the world, they are not going to suffer by specific specialist services for women not being all about them too.

They will survive permitting women an inch of the bloody universe, they really will.

If we're going to insist that the WI and Girl Guides stick to their charitable objectives, we should do the same here.

People don't get a free pass to break the law because they're on our side or doing a good thing. You aren't allowed to shoplift to fill the food bank.

This is wonderful news.

I hope it encourages more survivors to come forward. And so pleased to see they will support everyone.

Wow. You don't want every rape survivor to have help?

Jesus transphobia is such a sickness. You do realise cis male survivors need help too? No survivor should ever be excluded from accessing such a vital service.

How incredibly malicious.

My issue is public bodies who Commision services causing women only services to include males. When a service could be delivered over a number of agencies.

there is nothing transphobic about that

I would have thought the commissioning of public services in this way is exactly the sort of thing CWJ might want to challenge in their ‘holding the government to account’ capacity. But now they are conflicted.

Firstly this is part of the judicial service, it is a gov service. There is no way the government could fund a system giving legal advice to women victims only without falling foul of the Equality Act.

Secondly - what is the detriment to women rape survivors if men are also given advice? There has to be a valid reason for providing single sex services.

CWJ are doing this as an independent project. The money comes through government channels, it is meant to level the playing field where male rapists are given legal aid and their victims have no real support.

What is the outcome you want?
CWJ pulls out and another organisation (not concerned with sex) takes it on.

That the project is abandoned because of your purity concerns.

Or a fantasy solution where there are 2 separate projects for men and women, costing more money in admin and using the same lawyers that CWJ would have.

The outcome I want is women victims of rape to get proper advice and I have no problem if men also get that support. Are you really going to quibble about a 16 year old boy getting legal advice.

While I agree about the way other women's organisation have acted has been detrimental to women I really don't see that this is the case here. It is individual tailored advice not group therapy.
CWJ are the best people to lead because they have the experience and the knowledge. I think that's the best outcome for women.

From the evaluation report

The role of Centre for Women’s Justice
Legal supervision from Centre for Women’s Justice, particularly the leadership of Nogah Ofer, has been the lynchpin of the pilot’s success to date.
Without this support, the pilot team would not have the same extensive knowledge of this niche cross-section of law. Nogah and the CWJ’s support has been central to recruiting staff, providing external counsel, and strategic planning for the pilot.

Any national rollout needs serious consideration as to how this role could be replicated, particularly during the set-up and first year of operation. Key characteristics of this role will include specialist knowledge of taking legal action against the police and/or CPS, privacy rights, and criminal law surrounding sexual
violence investigations. The ability to work constructively with CJS professionals, while maintaining a critical independence will also be essential.

I have no idea what you're on about. This is a government-funded service for specialist legal advice for ALL rape survivors so they have a chance to get justice. It is not a single sex service specially for women. Good god. Hatred and bigotry really does blind people from reality.

'Hatred' - wishing women to be able to have services not preoccupied with men, but actually focused on women.

I think you're projecting more than a bit there. But whatever.

This new project is not preoccupied with men. It's a huge step forward for women.
Read the evaluation before making knee jerk comments.

Sigh. I am not making 'knee jerk' comments, I am commenting generally that it is ok for women's services to focus on women without the necessity that they must provide for men, or that where a charity has committed to women, they should not be viewed as doing something wrong unless they stretch to men TOO.

But whatever, crack on.

But unlike the other recommendations, which are explained, there doesn’t seem to be anything backing up the decision to include men in the same service. The pilot group was women only. Obviously men should be supported too. But it seems no consideration was given to whether men and women might be different. Which is odd given that support organisations exist for women only and for men only.

This isn't a service just for women. It's for all rape survivors. It doesn't matter the sex of the survivor ffs.

This isn't a support service - it's a specialist legal advice service.

I realise that but the fact that separate support services exist suggests the legal issues that arise in practice may be different - who knows? The pilot was only for women