Abstract
Court responses to rape have predominantly been discussed in relation to pervasive stereotypes that trivialise or ‘justify’ rape and undermine survivors (Ellison & Munro, 2013; Temkin & Krahé, 2008); the use of evidence about survivors’ sexual history (Kelly, Temkin, & Griffiths, 2006); and high levels of attrition (Westmarland, 2015). Relatively little has been discussed about the practicalities of trial and their potential role in survivor justice. However, practical considerations are central to the meaningful participation that survivors say they want, and so it is important to examine the seemingly mundane aspects of court. Indeed, S. Payne (2009) has argued that survivors are very anxious before and during their court attendance, especially when there are delays. This may partly explain why ‘fear of going to court’ is the most common reason for survivors withdrawing support for the prosecution, a key aspect of attrition (Lovett, Uzelac, Horvath, & Kelly, 2007). Rather than being extraneous, the practicalities of trial therefore require attention and will be given such in this chapter.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
While seemingly a practical issue, delays become a human rights consideration because the right to a fair trial involves a sense of timeliness.
- 2.
Cracked trials are those that are withdrawn on the day and not relisted, mostly through guilty pleas. Ineffective trials are those that are not ready on the day listed and are rearranged.
- 3.
Trials will be referred to as T1, T2, and so on, in order to avoid naming any participants.
- 4.
Case Management Judges are those who take on the majority of hearings about court orders and other case management issues being dealt with in that court area.
- 5.
Quotes in square brackets ‘[]’ are paraphrased rather than being exactly verbatim. In many cases, the quotes are still very close to verbatim but I was unsure whether I had noted every utterance and so treated it as paraphrasing.
- 6.
There is also an estimated cost of £93.3 million in legal aid for cases that are not heard in court
- 7.
This is important given Charles’ (2012) finding that many eligible witnesses are not identified or given the opportunity to apply for special measures .
- 8.
For child witnesses or those with a learning disability that causes difficulty in communicating.
References
Angilioni Report. (2015). Report of the independent review into the investigation and prosecution of rape in London. London: Metropolitan Police Service.
Baverstock, J. (2016). Process evaluation of pre-recorded cross-examination scheme (Section 28). London: Ministry of Justice.
Burton, M., Evans, R., & Sanders, A. (2007). Vulnerable and intimidated witnesses and the adversarial process in England and Wales. International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 11(1), 1–23.
Charles, C. (2012). Special measures for vulnerable and intimidated witnesses: Research exploring the decisions and actions taken by prosecutors in a sample of CPS case files. London: Crown Prosecution Service.
Council of Europe. (2012). Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Criminal Justice Act 1925. London: HM Stationary Office.
Daly, K. (2016). Reconceptualising sexual victimisation and justice. In I. Vanfraechem, A. Pemberton, & F. Mukwiza Ndahinda (Eds.), Justice for victims: Perspectives on rights, transition and reconciliation (pp. 378–395). London: Routledge.
Doak, J. (2005). Victims’ rights in criminal trials: Prospects for participation. Journal of Law & Society, 32(2), 294–316.
Doak, J. (2008). Victims’ rights, human rights and criminal justice: Reconceiving the role of third parties. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Durham, R., Lawson, R., Lord, A., & Baird, V. (2016). Seeing is believing: The Northumbria Court Observers Panel Report on 30 rape trials 2015–2016. Newcastle: Northumbria Police and Crime Commissioner.
Ellison, L. (2007). Witness preparation and the prosecution of rape. Legal Studies, 27(2), 171–187.
Ellison, L., & Munro, V. (2013). Better the devil you know? ‘Real rape’ stereotypes and the relevance of a previous relationship in (mock) juror deliberations. International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 17(4), 299–322.
Ellison, L., & Munro, V. (2014). A special delivery? Exploring the impact of screens, live links and video-recorded evidence on mock juror deliberation in rape trials. Social & Legal Studies, 23(1), 3–29.
Ewing, K. (2009). Attitudes and responses to rape in light of the low conviction rate. Plymouth Law Review, 2009, 48–70.
Findlay, L. (2015). Courting social media in Australia’s criminal courtrooms: The continuing tension between promoting open justice and protecting procedural integrity. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 27(2), 237–246.
Hall, M. (2009). Victims of crime: Policy and practice in criminal justice. Cullompton: Willan.
Hall, M. (2010). The relationship between victims and prosecutors: Defending victims’ rights? Criminal Law Review, 1, 31–45.
Hall, M. (2017). Victims of crime: Constructions, governance and policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hamlyn, B., Phelps, A., Turtle, J., & Sattar, G. (2004). Are special measures working? Evidence from surveys of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. Home Office Research Study 283, Home Office, London.
Herman, J. L. (2005). Justice from the victims’ perspective. Violence Against Women, 11(5), 571–602.
Herman, S. (2010). Parallel justice for victims of crime. Washington, DC: National Center for Victims of Crime.
HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate [HMCPSI]. (2007). Without consent: A report on the joint review of the investigation and prosecution of rape offences. London: HMCPSI.
HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate [HMCPSI]. (2013). Disclosure of medical records and counselling notes: A review of CPS compliance with rules and guidance in relation to disclosure of complainants’ medical records and counselling notes in rape and sexual offence cases. London: HMCPSI.
Ho, T. (2015). Televising Hong Kong courts: A study on its legitimacy and practicability. Hong Kong Journal of Legal Studies, 9, 121–147.
Home Office. (2007). Cross-government action plan on sexual violence and abuse. London: Home Office.
Hudson, B. (2002). Restorative justice and gendered violence: Diversion or effective justice? British Journal of Criminology, 42(3), 616–634.
Kazmin, A. (2017, March 6). India’s court system offers little hope of justice. Financial Times. Retrieved October 10, 2017, from https://www.ft.com/content/e3e31e4e-0015-11e7-8d8e-a5e3738f9ae4
Kebbell, M., O’Kelly, C., & Gilchrist, E. (2007). Rape victims’ experiences of giving evidence in English courts: A survey. Psychiatry, Psychology & Law, 14(1), 111–119.
Kelly, L., Temkin, J., & Griffiths, S. (2006). Section 41: An evaluation of new legislation limiting sexual history evidence in rape trials. Home Office Report 20/06, Home Office, London.
Kennedy, H. (2013, November 3). Cameras in court are a threat to justice. Guardian Online. Retrieved August 8, 2016, from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/03/cameras-in-court-threat-justice
Konradi, A. (2007). Taking the stand. Wesport: Praeger Publishers.
Lambert, P. (2013). Television courtroom broadcasting effects: The empirical research and the Supreme Court challenge. Lanham: University Press of America.
Lepofsky, D. (2009). Cameras in the courtroom: Not without my consent. In E. Barendt (Ed.), Media freedom and contempt of court (pp. 161–232). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Leveson, B. (2015). Review of efficiency in criminal proceedings. London: Judiciary of England and Wales.
Lovett, J., Uzelac, G., Horvath, M., & Kelly, L. (2007). Rape in the 21st century: Old behaviours, new contexts and emerging patterns. ESRC End of Award Report (RES-000-22-1679), Economic and Social Research Council, Swindon.
MacMillan, L., & Thomas, M. (2009). Police interviews of rape victims: Tensions and contradictions. In M. A. H. Horvath & J. Brown (Eds.), Rape: Challenging contemporary thinking (pp. 255–280). Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
McDonald, E., & Tinsley, Y. (2011). Use of alternative ways of giving evidence by vulnerable witnesses: Current proposals, issues and challenges. Victoria University of Wellington Legal Research Papers, 1(1), Paper 2/2011.
McGlynn, C., Downes, J., & Westmarland, N. (2017). Seeking justice for survivors of sexual violence: Recognition, voices and consequences. In M. Keenan & E. Zinsstag (Eds.), Sexual violence and restorative justice: Legal, social and therapeutic dimensions (pp. 179–191). London: Routledge.
Ministry of Justice. (2012). Swift and sure justice: The government’s plans for reform of the criminal justice system. London: Ministry of Justice.
Ministry of Justice. (2015). Code of practice for victims of crime. London: Ministry of Justice.
Ministry of Justice. (2016). Crown Courts to pilot filming for the first time. Retrieved January 17, 2017, from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/crown-courts-to-pilot-filming-for-the-first-time
Ministry of Justice. (2017). Lord Chief Justice’s report 2017. London: Judiciary of England and Wales.
Mulcahy, L. (2008). The unbearable lightness of being? Shift towards the virtual trial. Journal of Law and Society, 35(4), 464–489.
National Audit Office. (2016). Efficiency in the criminal justice system. London: National Audit Office with Ministry of Justice.
Northern Ireland Law Commission. (2011). Vulnerable witnesses in civil proceedings. Belfast: Northern Ireland Law Commission.
Payne, J. (2009). Criminal trial delays in Australia: Trial listing outcomes. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Payne, S. (2009). Rape victim experience review. London: Home Office.
Pearson, A. (2017, March 19). Rape trials: Liz Truss and the sisterhood are on the slippery slope to injustice. The Telegraph. Retrieved September 15, 2017, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/19/rape-trials-liz-truss-sisterhood-slippery-slope-injustice/
Powell, M., & Wright, R. (2010). Professionals’ perceptions of electronically recorded interviews with vulnerable witnesses. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 21(2), 205–218.
Rock, P. (2014). Victims’ rights. In I. Vanfraechem, A. Pemberton, & F. Mukwiza Ndahinda (Eds.), Justice for victims: Perspectives on rights, transition and reconciliation (pp. 11–31). London: Routledge.
Rudgard, O. (2017, March 27). Liz Truss’ announcement that rape victims could give evidence by video ‘misunderstood’ the law, says Britain’s most senior judge. The Telegraph. Retrieved September 15, 2017, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/22/liz-trusss-announcement-rape-victims-could-give-evidence-video/
Runciman, B., & Baker, B. (2016). An urgent need to address lengthy court delays in Canada: Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Ottawa: Senate of Canada.
Smith, O., & Skinner, T. (2012). Observing court responses to victims of rape and sexual assault. Feminist Criminology, 7(4), 298–326.
Stern, V. (2010). The Stern review: A report by Baroness Stern CBE of an independent review into how rape complaints are handled by public authorities in England and Wales. London: Home Office.
Sumray, R. (2007). Metropolitan Police Authority and London Criminal Justice Board: Rape convictions review. Rape, the media and the criminal justice system conference: Post conference report, December 2007, Greater London Authority, London.
Taylor, N., & Joudo, J. (2005). The impact of pre-recorded video and closed circuit television testimony by adult sexual assault complainants on jury decision-making: An experimental study. Australian Institute of Criminology Research and Public Policy Series (No. 68), Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra.
Temkin, J. (2000). Prosecuting and defending rape: Perspectives from the bar. Journal of Law and Society, 27(2), 219–248.
Temkin, J., & Krahé, B. (2008). Sexual assault and the justice gap: A question of attitude. Oxford: Hart Publications.
UN General Assembly. (1985). Declaration of basic principles of justice for victims of crime and abuse of power: Resolution (A/RES/40/34). New York: United Nations.
Walker, S., & Louw, D. (2003). The court for sexual offences. International Journal of Law & Psychiatry, 26(1), 73–85.
Westera, N., McKimmie, B., Kebbell, M., Milne, R., & Masser, B. (2015). Does the narrative style of video evidence influence judgements about rape complainant testimony? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29(5), 637–646.
Westmarland, N. (2015). Violence against women: Criminological perspectives on men’s violence. Abingdon: Routledge.
Wheeler, B. (2015, November 24). Spending review: Department-by-department cuts guide. BBC News Online. Retrieved August 9, 2016, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34790102
Willis, J. (2015, October 10). Live video link a ‘radical’ step forward for victims of sexual assault, says senior judge. Northern Echo. Retrieved August 7, 2016, from http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/features/13838922.Live_video_link_a__radical__step_forward_for_victims_of_sexual_assault__says_senior_judge/
Wolhuter, L., Olly, N., & Denham, D. (2009). Victimology: Victimisation and victims’ rights. Abingdon: Routledge.
Youth Justice & Criminal Evidence Act 1999. London: HM Stationary Office.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Smith, O. (2018). Rape Trial Practicalities: Delays, Special Measures, and the Survivors’ Experience. In: Rape Trials in England and Wales. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75674-5_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75674-5_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-75673-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-75674-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)