Drug-assisted Sexual Assault
We now come to members' business. I appeal to members who are leaving to do so quickly and quietly so that we can proceed. The motion to be debated is S1M-1368, in the name of Pauline McNeill, on drug-assisted sexual assault. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the findings of the Home Office/Police Research Awards study on Drug Assisted Sexual Assault undertaken by DCI Peter Sturman of the Metropolitan Police; believes that drug assisted rape and sexual assault is a serious cause for concern, and notes that DCI Sturman's research progresses the debate on this matter and should be fully considered by the Parliament.
It is apt, in the light of this week's press, that we are having this debate on drug-assisted sexual assault. I say that not because I want to deviate from the main subject, but because there are general concerns about the way in which women are dealt with in the criminal justice system and about definitions in the law.
If one tracks the history of crimes against women, one will discover that the legal establishment has often been slow to modernise and to bring equality to the law—consider the fact that rape within marriage was only relatively recently brought to the fore. I know that the Parliament and its powerful committees will not allow that to happen when they find fault in the law.
I turn to the subject for debate. There is a delicate balance to be struck when publicising the problem of drug-assisted sexual assault. There is a need to raise awareness, while not creating unnecessary alarm and without educating potential offenders.
I thank members who have shown their support, not only by signing the motion that we are debating tonight, but by signing an earlier motion in November. Since then, I have learned quite a bit about drug-assisted sexual assault and, because of that, have come into contact with Peter Sturman, the detective chief inspector of the Metropolitan police. He is the author of the most important research in the United Kingdom on this important issue and it is to his research that I will refer.
We must not confuse drug-assisted rape with date rape—very few victims of drug-assisted rape describe their experiences as being anything like a date. The use of that term can serve to negate the strength of the case against an offender. I speak in the light of this week's report and Lord Abernethy's decision in the Aberdeen case—that sex without force, even without the woman's consent, is not rape. That is relevant to the debate because a drug-assisted sexual attack is often sex without a woman's real consent, despite its taking place without the use of physical force.
The police hold no evidence on the specific problem of drug-assisted sexual assault or rape. Drug rape is a problem in the UK, but not of epidemic proportions, although reported cases date back to the 1940s. Rape Crisis Scotland has not noted any increase in the offence, but I would like to debate the subject and, especially, to raise awareness of it.
I want to say something about definitions. The term drug rape describes a situation in which a person's ability to consent or refuse is impaired as a result of a drug or drugs. The scenario that is most commonly associated with drug rape is one in which a drug is slipped into a victim's drink. Such drugs can render a person mentally incapacitated and physically helpless, or victims can be aware of what is happening to them while they are physically unable to resist. Assaults can vary in nature and their effect—accompanied by the trauma that is associated with the memory loss and confusion that is suffered by many victims—can be of a similar magnitude to the effect of the offence of rape.
The term date rape is often wrongly applied to drug-assisted sexual assaults. Although some attacks might result from a date scenario, the majority of complainants do not agree that they were on any sort of date. The term date rape should not be used; it belittles the effects of an attack on a victim.
We know something about the characteristics of offenders. The offence occurs in a variety of circumstances. A victim can be party to a relationship with the offender and can be a willing partner to sexual activity, but many victims have been assaulted while they were completely sedated. Some victims might consent to assaults, but simply cannot remember afterwards what happened.
Some offenders are convicted mainly on the basis of photographic or video evidence and some of that evidence would be alarming to many men and women. Offenders may have collected such evidence as pornography or as trophies. Digital technology can be used to enhance, alter or distribute such material. Some victims in such circumstances may become aware of the event only after an investigating officer shows them the evidence.
Offenders can take advantage of incapacitated victims whom they might encounter, or they might develop situations in which a person becomes incapable of forming reasoned consent. The intent of an offender is often difficult to prove. He might say that he thought it was okay and that the victim had consented. There are also questions about what constitutes socially acceptable behaviour and often the blame can be shifted to the victim.
Pre-planned offences are often the actions of more than one individual using alcohol or drugs, or a combination of the two, to achieve their objective. The first offender administers the drug, then leaves. The second offender will join in after the drug has taken effect, subsequently arguing that he could not have administered the drug. The offenders may be in a relationship. The victims feel safer when a woman is present and tend to trust a couple. The offender may give the complainant alcohol, cocaine or ecstasy after administering a date-rape drug in order to mask the date-rape drug and devalue the complainant's account when samples are examined. Most notably, most of the attacks begin in social settings and often involve people who know each other.
We know from the statistics in the report that 42 per cent of complainants are in their 30s, which is surprising, and that 20 per cent of victims are university students. The National Union of Students is to be commended on the work that it has done to raise awareness among students. We should take that as an example.
I do not have time to talk about all the drugs. I will just say a word or two about what we know. Alcohol is defined as a drug. We all know that alcohol is often associated with circumstances in which drug-assisted assaults take place. Although gamma hydroxybutyrate and a group of 20 other drugs have not been detected in drug-assisted rape cases, they are either suspected of having been used or have the potential to be used. Often, alcohol is combined with the drug. Prior to February 1999, the forensic service did not check for GHB, but now it does, so we are making progress. The crucial point about GHB is that it is colourless and practically odourless, and therefore difficult to detect.
A person who takes drugs or alcohol, and who is raped as a result of being incapacitated, does not consent. Consent must be informed—it must be intelligent and not obtained through drugs. Sixty-nine per cent of complainants realise within eight hours of the attack that they have been assaulted. The majority of victims are alone when they gain full consciousness, and the additional trauma of lost time and fear of the unknown effects contribute to the assault.
The Sturman report asks us to examine four areas, the first of which is a dialogue on sharing information between agencies. That is crucial in all the work that we do on social justice. Secondly, there should be a complainant-driven approach; Rape Crisis should be the lead body in that respect. Thirdly, there should be dedicated sexual assault examination centres, where there should be appropriate equipment to detect such assaults, which it is possible to do. Last, there should be a body to deal with drug-assisted sexual assault and to bring together all the aspects. I am not calling for those measures in particular, but saying that we should consider them as the way forward.
At the beginning of my speech, I said that I would like the Parliament to consider how we can raise awareness of this alarming situation. Once we have done that, if we decide that the law should be reformed, we should do so.
I thank members who have supported my motion and who are here tonight.
I thank Pauline McNeill for bringing this issue to the Parliament and I congratulate her on securing the debate and on the quality of the information that she has brought to it. It has been more than a year since I secured my members' business debate on the rights of rape victims and it is heartening to know that the work of the Parliament is continuing in this area.
Drug-assisted rape is the fastest-increasing crime against women. It is estimated that, to date, 2,000 women have been the victims of sexual assault after having been drugged. The crime is hugely distressing for the victim and is exacerbated by the fact that many cannot clearly remember the events that occurred.
Drug rape is a high-profile crime. The fact that drugs are used to aid the assault adds to the media interest, of which there is much. As a result, much of the discussion about drug-assisted sexual assault concentrates on the drug, implying that it is the drug that is evil, rather than the men. However, the men are the ones who are doing the raping; the drug is just the form of disarmament. Drug rape is simply rape carried out with the aid of drugs; it is no different from rape that is carried out with the aid of alcohol, the threat of violence or the use of force.
We must change attitudes towards rape. When that crime is committed, we must ensure that justice is done. Pauline McNeill's debate will add to the strength of the work that is being done on the matter; it will keep the issue alive and ensure that it has a high profile.
Rape is rape, no matter how it is carried out. If we start to concentrate solely on the methods that are used to carry it out, divided we will fall. Last week, Lord Abernethy put back by light years the work of groups such as Rape Crisis, Women's Aid and Zero Tolerance and their campaigns to end violence against women. To suggest that physical force or the threat of force must be used before an act can constitute rape is an insult. In the case concerned, it must have been even more horrendous for the victim to hear that, even though she had said no many times, no was not enough.
When the judiciary makes such statements, what message is sent out to society? Zero Tolerance has shown that 50 per cent of young people feel that there are situations in which it is acceptable to rape a woman. One in 10 boys have said that they would rape a woman if they thought that they could get away with it.
According to Lord Abernethy's ruling, if a woman were drugged, she could be not only raped, but gang raped, yet if there were no physical signs of damage, those acts would not constitute rape. That is unacceptable. I am grateful to Pauline McNeill for initiating the debate. The fact that we are having it this week will help us to deal with that judgment.
I join in the congratulations to Pauline McNeill on securing the debate. I thank her for giving all members the opportunity to air our concerns about drug-assisted sexual assault.
I appreciate the fact that members will not wish to labour long on recent court decisions, which have been covered at length on television and in the press—although, from looking at the press gallery, I think that it is doubtful whether our debate will be covered. However, that court decision is a debate for another day, which I hope will be in the not-too-distant future. I would welcome efforts to make changes in the direction that has been suggested. For too long, the topic has been subjected to legalese and learned definition. It has been like a child's riddle: when is a door not a door? When it is ajar. When does no mean yes? When it is a rape charge. However, as I said, that debate is for another day.
Pauline McNeill is right to highlight the issue. We are grateful for being informed by Peter Sturman's research. I have done some research of my own and I have been staggered by the wealth of information and advice that is available on the web. Rohypnol appears to be the drug of choice for those who chase an easy conquest. The alternative of gamma hydroxybutyrate, or GHB, is another popular seller. Its name would have been much easier to remember if it had been called GBH. What makes that drug so popular? I expect that it is the ease with which it is used to spike someone's drink and to leave them not in control of their senses.
It is a fact of life that women, with more economic independence and growing confidence about enjoying the benefits of their efforts, are drinking more. That leaves them open to the opportunist chancer. I do not mean to be a killjoy. I understand that if people work hard, they may want to play hard.
How times have changed, however. In my mother's day, it would have been the height of scandal for a woman to be incapacitated by drink. A hangover of almighty proportions would have curtailed further adventure with alcohol. When I was a younger woman, discos and a couple of drinks were the order of the weekend's entertainment. Being asked to take to the floor for the last dance could be the highlight of the night.
The excitements that my children's generation seem to look for scare me. Many of us who are parents will have seen their children off for a night's entertainment with a warning ringing in their ears: "Never go back to a drink that has been temporarily out of sight. Buy another one. The risk is too great." That applies equally to boys and girls, so no feminist agenda is involved.
Here is some more advice. Before women go on a night out and take a chance, they should examine their feelings about sex and set limits. They should decide early whether they wish to have sex and they should not give mixed messages. They should be clear when they say yes or no and alert to unconscious messages that they might be giving. They should be forceful and firm, independent and aware, and they should not do anything just to avoid unpleasantness.
Women should be aware of specific situations in which they do not feel relaxed and in charge. If things get out of hand, they should be loud and protesting and they should leave and get help. Gut feelings should be trusted and women should be aware that alcohol and drugs are often related to acquaintance rape. They should avoid falling for lines such as: "You would if you loved me." If they are unsure of new acquaintances, they should go on a group date and have transport available or a taxi fare. It is important to recall that real men do not rape.
I am pleased to have participated in the debate and I congratulate Pauline McNeill on bringing the matter to our attention.
As gender reporter for the Equal Opportunities Committee, I have worked on issues relating to women and the justice system. That work was started by Johann Lamont and the committee's sub-group. I take issue with one thing that Lyndsay McIntosh said: I think that the issue is a women's issue. However, with others, I congratulate Pauline McNeill on securing the debate.
As we know from research, the vast majority of women who are raped or sexually assaulted know their abusers. That is also the case with drug-assisted rapes. DCI Sturman's report on drug-assisted sexual assault was produced after interviews with 109 female and 14 male drug-rape victims. The report informs us that 70 per cent of victims knew their attackers and that 27 per cent of victims cited them as friends. Fifteen per cent cited attackers as fellow students. The report states that up to 25 different drugs—mostly types of tranquillisers, sleeping tablets and anaesthetics—are used.
After drug-assisted rape, most women are left with little or no clear memory of what has happened. They can therefore be reluctant to report the crime. Like other victims, they have a fear of being medically examined, of not being believed and of being questioned. The last is made worse by the possibility of the obscene spectacle of their attacker cross-examining them.
Until recently, proof of having been drugged was difficult to establish because the substance remained in the blood for only a few hours. However, I understand that new tests have been developed that can trace such drugs for up to 18 months after the attack. I feel that that needs to be highlighted.
If charges are made and the case goes to court, victims have to relive the whole horrific experience. They can end up feeling that they are the one in the dock. It is often implied that a woman has asked for it because of her dress, make-up, behaviour or sexual history. Two thirds of the drugged victims interviewed for the study that I mentioned said that they decided not to report the attack to the police because they were too ashamed or because they blamed themselves. Of those who reported what happened to the authorities, more than half felt that their treatment by the police was poor. Perhaps the police could learn lessons from their current approach to domestic abuse.
If the woman has had previous contact with the perpetrator, she can be made to feel that she is somehow to blame. If a woman has not resisted, it now seems that that can become evidence of consent. As mentioned, we saw an example of that in the rape case in Aberdeen, when Lord Abernethy, in an absolutely outrageous decision, told the jury that there was no case to answer. He ruled that sex without a woman's consent is not rape unless the attacker uses force or the threat of force. Does Lord Abernethy not realise that in such a situation a woman can be so frightened and so fearful of violence, and even of the loss of her life, that she will not put up a struggle? In the case of drug rape, she may not even have been conscious.
The Scottish judge, Lord Cockburn, stated 150 years ago that the essence of rape is that sexual intercourse is obtained without the woman's consent. Sir Gerald Gordon QC, the respected author of a standard textbook on criminal law, believes:
"It is simpler to discard the concept of force altogether and to define rape in terms of overpowering or overcoming the will of the victim."
Both men seem more enlightened than Lord Abernethy. Fortunately, the Lord Advocate has requested a report on the Aberdeen case and may ask the Court of Appeal to rule on the judge's interpretation of the law.
We know that the number of rapes reported remains the tip of the iceberg and that, of those reported, only 16 per cent get to court and only 9 per cent result in conviction. Women who have their drinks spiked and are subsequently raped are reluctant to report the crime. Women who are raped when not drugged are reluctant to report the crime. Women are told to be wary of strange men lurking in bars, but their attacker is most likely to be someone whom they already know. Women are told to avoid badly lit streets, to train in self-defence and to moderate their appearance. Why should women have to modify their behaviour? Women are not the rapists. It is the men who must change their behaviour and it is society that must change its attitudes. We do not tell pedestrians to take high-jump lessons so that they can leap out of the way of drunk or reckless drivers; we try to change the behaviour of the offenders. We should be sending out and reinforcing the clear message that male violence against women is unacceptable and that no always means no.
The Sturman report calls for a nationwide network of 24-hour sexual assault treatment centres, where victims can, under one roof, receive medical attention and counselling and make a statement to the police. We should seriously consider that proposal, which would make the ordeal of reporting rape and receiving treatment less traumatic for victims. We must create an environment where women can come forward in confidence, where women will be believed and where women will tell us what multi-agency services there should be.
I will address the issue of women keeping themselves safe. In a recent conversation with some young women of my acquaintance, I was struck by the way in which life has changed since I was a young woman going out for a drink. The young women told me that they never leave a drink unattended and that they almost invariably have drinks that are in bottles. That tells me that women understand the dangers and try to avoid the problem of drug-assisted rape.
It is depressing that, as women get wise to that form of safety, there will no doubt be men who will find other means of exercising power, oppressing women and carrying out sexual violence. It is important to recognise that there is a feminist agenda. Although the victims of the crime outlined by Pauline McNeill may not only be women, the perpetrators will almost invariably be male. That should be addressed. This is about power relationships. Rape is a crime that uses power and sexual violence—that reflects deeper attitudes in society. That is why it is important that our legal system matches the ingenuity of men when they seek to exercise power over women and use sexual violence. Instead of being thirled to old attitudes and definitions, the legal system must address the questions that Pauline McNeill highlighted.
It is also important that we continue to challenge the attitudes that are reflected in some of the decisions of the legal system. A simple lesson that I would like to teach my daughter and son—it would be valuable to all our young people and to society as a whole—is that, when women say no, they mean no. The issue is as clear, simple and straightforward as that. Men should be able to control themselves. In our society, men and women must take responsibility for their actions. When it comes to rape, however, it seems that when women say no they mean yes and that the confusion of the night absolves men of responsibility for their actions.
There has been outrage in the past week over what Lord Abernethy said, but there appears to be a strongly held view that, when a woman finds herself in such a situation, what happens is somehow her fault. This debate is helpful in challenging such attitudes and in demonstrating the complicated way in which power can be exercised. We are grateful to Pauline McNeill for securing tonight's debate.
I congratulate Pauline McNeill, who must feel quite feted tonight. I want to add to what has been a significant debate. As Gil Paterson—who is to be congratulated on his work on related issues—said, the Parliament, from its inception, has taken the issue seriously. We are doing our bit to raise public awareness, and all members who have contributed to today's debate are to be congratulated.
As Pauline McNeill and others have said, the debate was prompted by last year's Home Office-sponsored research report, "Drug Assisted Sexual Assault", which was written by the Metropolitan police. The report focused on English procedures and laws, but it was a valuable contribution to the sum of knowledge on the matter. We all welcome any material that helps to highlight the issues.
The report makes wide-ranging recommendations covering prevention, criminal process, the victim and society's attitudes. A number of the report's recommendations, such as those on basic procedures for treating victims, already apply in some form in Scotland. Not everything in the report is relevant to Scotland, but it is nonetheless important for us to keep those issues within our framework to ensure that we are pursuing that agenda.
I hope that it goes without saying that Scottish ministers condemn all types of sexual assault, no matter how it is perpetrated. I share Gil Paterson's analysis of the problem and his view that we should not get so fixated on how such crimes are committed that we forget about their inherent criminality. It is right that they should be treated seriously. The law does so by making drug-assisted crimes liable to the same heavy penalties as other forms of sexual assault.
The licensing and control of medicines is a reserved matter. Responsibility for that lies with the Medicines Control Agency. As with all drugs, the so-called date-rape drugs that are referred to in the report are subject to strict controls. I agree with Pauline McNeill's firm view that we must be careful about the language that we use and what is implied by terms such as date rape. Possession of Rohypnol without authority is an offence, and gamma hydroxybutyrate can be made available only by doctor's prescription. Any other method of sale or supply is a criminal offence. The Medicines Control Agency has issued public guidance warning of the dangers of those drugs, and I am sure that we all welcome that sensible move.
It is important to get across the right messages about being alert to potential dangers. That is particularly relevant when it comes to drugs, both in this context and generally. Scottish ministers approved the setting up of the drug misuse communications group, in accordance with our drugs strategy commitment to provide
"local … publicity campaigns and drug education materials."
That commitment is reaffirmed in the Scottish Executive's drugs action plan. The group met for the first time in January to agree its remit and membership and is in the process of carrying out an audit of current and planned drugs communication material, campaigns and activity. That will provide a base on which the group can plan its work to ensure that the issues that we are discussing today can be flagged up.
The group is currently looking at improving information targeted at young people and clubbers, which will include serious issues such as drug-assisted assaults of that nature. Of the new £100 million drugs expenditure package, £6.3 million has been earmarked for public awareness initiatives and we are consulting on the best way to spend that money.
There is a wide range of sexual offences both at common law and in statute. Rape and sexual assault are common-law offences; rape is always tried in the High Court. Both crimes can attract sentences of up to life imprisonment. Many members have referred to recent concerns about the law on rape, and Scottish ministers are aware of those concerns. Although it is not the purpose of today's debate to make specific reference to the case in question, let me make it clear that the Scottish Executive is determined that there should be confidence in the criminal justice system. As members know, the matter is currently with the Lord Advocate. Our sympathy lies with victims and we have solidarity with them. We want to ensure that they get fair hearings and that the law affords sufficient protection for all.
Work is in hand on the commitment to make proposals to change aspects of the law on evidence in cases of rape and other sexual offences to further protect the complainer. As members will know, a consultation exercise on proposals dealing with the cross-examination of a complainer by an accused person and the admissibility of certain aspects of evidence has recently been completed, and we have a commitment to legislate. Responses from and informal meetings with representatives of victim support groups and other interests will help to inform the development of any new policy and we shall continue to conduct such consultation. Further consultation on vulnerable witnesses will be produced later this year.
We also plan to announce shortly the new proposals for dealing with serious violent and sexual offenders, following on from the recommendations in the report of the MacLean committee, which was published in June 2000. We are also considering whether there are adequate protections from sexual assault for vulnerable people in the light of the Millan committee's review of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, which was produced in January 2001.
Members will be aware of continuing work by the Home Office on the review of sex offences in England and Wales. We will consider closely the outcome of the consultation for the review to see if there are any lessons to be learned for Scotland. Members will appreciate the differences between the legal systems; I am sure that everyone will understand that we will make appropriate laws for Scotland.
There is a need to ensure that the system cares for those who are the victims of the most appalling crimes. I mentioned the work that is in hand on proposals to change the law of evidence in sex assault cases. We have also said that some of the report's recommendations are already reflected in our strategy for victims.
We want to stress that the Scottish Executive is committed to action to support all victims of crime. The Scottish Executive granted over £2.2 million to Victim Support Scotland this year, specifically to help victims of sexual assaults. The aim is to promote a shared understanding of the needs of victims and a shared vision for the future provision of victims services. That is why we launched the Scottish strategy for victims on 16 January. I am sure that members will be aware of the continuing work on that. As has been mentioned, the police are usually the first point of contact in the criminal justice system for victims. It is important that victims are treated properly from the earliest encounter.
We emphasise the importance of tact and sensitivity in dealing with all victims of sex offences—that has long been recognised by the Scottish Executive and the police. In her excellent speech, Elaine Smith referred to the progress that has been made on that. I will not read out all the notes that I have about the guidance that has been issued to police and what the Scottish Police College has been doing on the matter. If any members want the details on that, I will be happy to provide them.
Pauline McNeill's speech, in demonstrating her commitment, asked the Executive to pursue a number of issues. I take her point that we must share this agenda. We are working on agencies sharing information—technology is assisting in that. We put the complainer's rights at the centre of the policy that we are moving forward. My understanding is that police have interview suites on sites and there are dedicated facilities in hospitals. Agencies are already working together.
Scottish ministers recognise public concern about drug-assisted sexual assault. We condemn all types of sexual assault. The in-depth report by DCI Sturman is a welcome addition to the body of knowledge. We take this seriously.
I thank Pauline McNeill for bringing this important issue to the attention of Parliament. It is at the heart of our equality drive to ensure that progress is made on issues such as this.
The Parliament and the Executive can work in partnership to ensure that we deliver for all people in Scotland, including victims of sexual assault.
Meeting closed at 17:43.