Rape Cases (Protection of Victims)
We now move to the members' business debate on motion S1M-253, in the name of Mr Gil Paterson, on the protection of victims in rape cases.
I ask members who are not staying for the debate to leave quietly and quickly.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the recent report produced by Soroptimist International into the way rape victims are treated by the legal system and recognises the need to address the way the legal system, which currently fails to protect adequately women and children, operates in such cases.
Thank you, Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to debate this motion.
In September and October last year, the Parliament had the opportunity to debate the issue of domestic violence. I am sure that members will agree that the issue of rape deserves a debate on its own. I hope that this debate will be as constructive and helpful as the previous debates on domestic violence.
I also wish to thank the various organisations that have provided information and advice—they are in the gallery tonight. Those organisations are: Zero Tolerance, Scottish Women's Aid, Edinburgh Women's Aid, Victim Support Scotland, Rape Crisis Scotland, Lothian and Borders police and, of course, Soroptimist International.
The publication of a report by Soroptimist International, which discussed the way in which victims of rape are treated and made 28 recommendations, prompted me to lodge the motion. Because of time constraints, I cannot discuss all the recommendations, although, honestly, I would very much like to.
However, the message that I want to get across is clear—both the law and practice must be changed to protect the victims of rape. At the end of the day, we must also change attitudes to offer victims the best support.
Before I progress, I wish to draw attention to a few facts. First, next to murder, rape constitutes the most serious crime against a person. Secondly, victims of rape tend not to lie about the fact that rape has occurred—it is no different from false reports of other crimes, such as robbery.
The incidence of crimes of rape has increased, but the increase in the number of convictions is
decreasing, and the level of convictions stands, unfortunately, at 6 per cent, not including cases that are turned over. I ask the members here, and everybody in Scotland: for what other crime would we tolerate such a low hit rate, as those figures show? If there was the same rate of conviction for house-breaking, the people would be out in the streets.
The Soroptimist International report focuses on the treatment of victims of rape as well as the legal aspects. I shall concentrate on three areas of the report—first, the initial reports of events; secondly, the response to the alleged crimes; and, thirdly, the restrictions and exceptions on evidence that relates to sexual offences. My colleague, Dorothy- Grace Elder, will mention later in the debate—if she is chosen to speak, Sir David—the persecution that goes on when people who are accused of committing rape are given the opportunity to harass the victim.
The initial reporting of events can be the most traumatic time for a victim and can have a lasting effect on the way in which victims recover. The first point of contact is usually the police. Although extensive courses on dealing with victims of rape are available to police officers, they are not compulsory throughout the ranks. In addition to the lack of training, a lack of facilities is also prevalent. Unfortunately, few police stations have dedicated suites, and even fewer have police surgeons on call. If a police surgeon is on call, they are unlikely to be a female surgeon.
The situation is worse in rural areas; victims must travel miles to the nearest hospital to be examined. We must bear in mind the excellent support services that are provided by organisations such as Victim Support and Rape Crisis to the victims and their families. That support is relied on at a vital time and has proved important to the recovery of the victims.
After a rape has been reported to the police, the suspect has access to a lawyer straight away. The victim, on the other hand, as the prime witness for the prosecution, has no right to be kept up to date: the procurator fiscal acts on their behalf. I want to highlight this point, as it is extremely important. From the outset, the suspect has a lawyer and is kept informed through updates of every development. The victim, on the other hand, can go for months hearing no word at all. Rape cases also take up to 12 months to come to court, which is an awfully long time after an event to try to remember details, especially as the nature of them would suggest that the victim would want to forget them. That process can be highly traumatic for the victims.
If a case comes to court, the chances of conviction are slim. Methods that are employed by the defence can stretch to the demeaning of a woman and the blighting of her character. Clothing that was worn at the time of the assault is admissible as evidence and is used to imply that the woman's manner of dress somehow influenced the attack. A victim's sexual history can also be called into question—even that which occurred with partners other than the defendant, whose history remains silent.
It must be remembered that no woman asks to be raped, and no woman deserves to be raped. A woman always has the right to say no, and a man should take the responsibility to ensure consent. That fundamental principle underlies Zero Tolerance's initiative, which was prompted by a study that was carried out into young people's attitudes towards violence against women. That study produced shocking results. It concluded that one in two young men and one in three young women felt that, in certain circumstances, it was acceptable to force a woman to have sex. Their justification for that ranged from:
"If he was so turned on they couldn't stop"
to
"if they had spent a lot of money on them"
and
"if no one would find out".
It is not just in young people that that attitude is found. The Soroptimist International report recorded the following shocking statements. In 1993, Judge Ian Hill, describing the attempted rape of an eight-year-old victim, said that the attacker
"was led to believe that she was not entirely an angel herself".
My God—are not all eight-year-olds entitled to be treated like angels? Do we expect them to be put under pressure from such people?
In 1989, Judge Raymond Dean said:
"As gentlemen of the jury will understand when a women says no, she doesn't always mean it."
About whom is he talking? Is he talking about our mothers, or my sisters or granddaughters? I do not think that it is only men who mean no when they say no.
No matter what laws are in place and what practice is established, we need a change in attitude. All the voluntary organisations that are present tonight will agree that prevention is better than cure—we must stop rape before it happens. That is why I am involved in the issue, which I do not regard as a female problem; it is a male problem. Until men take up the cudgels and tell other men that rape and behaviour in court such as that which I have described is unacceptable, progress will be slow.
I thank Soroptimist International for its detailed and damning report on the humiliation to which rape victims are subjected by the legal system. I hope that the Scottish Executive will adopt the view, which is held by many MSPs and organisations that are here today, that change is needed urgently.
Zero Tolerance has taught us about the importance of prevention, provision and protection in relation to rape and all other forms of violence against women. Clearly, there must be education from an early age to change male attitudes, and there must be provision of services—I am particularly concerned about the funding crisis facing the Rape Crisis Centre in Edinburgh.
Today we are concentrating on protection. I welcome the soroptimists' report, but I do not support the view that there should be a separate charge of date rape, as the seriousness of that offence must not be diminished. If it is difficult to get a conviction, we should ask why. Why do so many women not come forward? Why is it that, although the number of reported rapes has gone up, the number of convictions has gone down?
We should concentrate on the report, "Towards a Just Conclusion", which suggested many ways in which the treatment of rape victims in court could be improved. I will leave it to Johann Lamont, who has convened a group of members of the Equal Opportunities Committee, to talk in detail about the report.
Why has nothing been done about the report in the past year? The rape crisis centres welcomed the report in principle, but thought that it did not go far enough. For example, they wanted more support for victims in court and the use of screens in court. The report should be debated and developed soon.
I will conclude by picking up on something that Jim Wallace said during questions last week. Johann Lamont and I—and others, I am sure— were shocked that he used the red herring of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the cross-examination of rape victims by the accused. That question was debated exhaustively in the House of Commons last year in connection with legislation in England. I invite ministers and other members to read the report of the House of Lords debate of 1 February 1999, in which all the expert lawyers in the House of Lords agreed that that is not an issue.
Article 6.3 of the European convention on human rights talks about the right of someone to defend himself in person or through a legal assistant—it does not have to be the person himself who conducts the defence. We should also remember articles 3 and 8, which talk about the right to protection from cruel and inhuman treatment and about unwarranted intrusion into private lives. That is the issue that is involved in the cross-examination of rape victims by the accused.
I thank Gil Paterson for raising this subject and the people in the galleries who have stayed to watch the debate and who have counselled our thoughts on this matter.
I support all Malcolm Chisholm's comments on the "Towards a Just Conclusion" document and other legal developments. It is well worth remembering that it is in our power to do something about the treatment of victims of rape. Excellent measures such as the use of screens or videoconferencing links to courtrooms should have been considered long before now.
No one will take exception to the view that many rape victims are abused both when they are raped and when they have to relive the experience with the police, the medical examiner, the procurators fiscal, the prosecution and the defence. How many times must a woman live through such an experience before she can shut her eyes to it, if she can? We do people a disservice by not recognising the trauma of rape, and we need to fund more services to help people suffering that trauma.
I do not mean to diminish the offence of rape. However, in criminal law, the technical definition of rape can be a small matter in terms of physical abuse, whereas sexual assault can be more violent. We should bear in mind the fact that sexual assault, not through penetration by the man, but by some artificial article, can sometimes be even worse than rape.
I am happy to accept Christine Grahame's point that it is not just penetration that presents a problem when collecting evidence of the crime and reliving the experience.
I agree entirely with Gil Paterson's point that this subject is also a male issue. I am delighted to see that more males are present tonight than were here when we debated domestic violence a few months ago. Every rapist is some mother's son, and every victim is some person's sister, wife or daughter. We all have to take ownership of the issue.
A few years ago, I visited my local rape suite. I am sure that the police make every effort to make
such suites hospitable places for someone going through the trauma of rape. However, such suites are not commonplace throughout the country. Furthermore, although I appreciate the efforts of the police in this area, women will never feel entirely at ease in rape suites because of all the people to whom they must speak in order to pursue a prosecution.
Gil mentioned the inappropriateness of sheriffs' comments. Perhaps the fact that there will be more women sheriffs will alter such attitudes. I am particularly delighted to see that development.
I am particularly pleased that tonight's debate has been initiated and led by a man, who did so entirely on his own as a husband, father, grandfather and MSP. That should remind us that the majority of decent men in Scotland—and anywhere—are truly appalled by the crime of rape.
It is time that the voices of such decent men were heard. It is time that they stood up to be counted and helped to ease the desperate plight of women's organisations as they fight what I call sexual torture—which, as Christine Grahame pointed out, does not just include rape.
This is not a women's issue; it is an abomination to all civilised people. Men commit rape. They rape women; they rape children; and we must remember that they also rape other men.
All the victims must be protected, but what is happening to those who protect them? What is happening to Women's Aid and to Rape Crisis? The organisations that help women get as far as a court are suffering a cash crisis, which is stifling their sterling work.
I have seen how the police have improved in this area, especially in the past five years, but the courts have not improved. Women are still verbally brutalised by advocates earning £300 an hour— some of them should be ashamed to pick that money up.
Every decent person in Britain is outraged that Mike Tyson gained entrance to the country. I wish that, in protest, everyone who is outraged would send £10 to Women's Aid or to Rape Crisis. So- called celebrities are paying £1,500 for ringside seats—they should be ashamed to occupy them. Tyson was admitted by the Home Secretary on compassionate grounds—presumably so that a convicted rapist would not be traumatised by having to lose a lot of money. Disgraceful! Tyson is a disgrace to his sport and should have been booted out years ago. Look at the contrast between a rich rapist arriving in zero-tolerant Britain and rape crisis groups that are in danger of closing because they are starved of cash. Rape crisis centres are worse off now than they ever were. Scotland's nine centres are all run on a shoestring—they cannot afford to staff the phones for more than a few hours. The exhausted staff at Glasgow Rape Crisis managed to respond to more than 1,000 calls, but 300 others were logged as hanging up. What happened to the 300 women whose courage ran out when they got through only to an answering machine? We should be haunted by them.
Glasgow Rape Crisis used to get £50,000 to £60,000 a year from Strathclyde Regional Council. That was a one-stop application that consumed very little time. Now it gets £44,000 and must deal with nine different local authorities, which means that the time of one full-time worker is taken up for two thirds of the year just rattling the begging bowl on behalf of desperate women. The centre has only two full-time workers.
Glasgow Women's Aid finds that much of the domestic violence that it deals with involves extremes of sexual torture. Most often the rapist is well known to the victim. By the way, I agree that there should be a separate date rape charge. Glasgow Women's Aid says that it will close very soon for lack of £30,000. Last night I was told that
"after next week we will have no more money".
So much for talk about zero tolerance. Funding for the refuge in Easterhouse will run out in March. Edinburgh Rape Crisis—to which Malcolm Chisholm referred—aids people in the Lothians and the Borders with only two full-time workers; it is about to lose its urban aid grant of £20,000. I could tell a similar story for every rape crisis centre in Scotland. I appeal to the Parliament to help—I am sure that there is good will to do so.
Unfortunately, this vital subject has been shoehorned into a mere half-hour debate. I am certain that all parties really do want to help— please do not just talk it, do it.
I shall try to be brief, as I know that many people have a contribution to make. I want to draw the attention of the chamber to the work of the Equal Opportunities Committee women's group, which is attempting to put the discussion of rape and violence against women in the context of attitudes to women and the unequal treatment of women. As a group, we have been asked to look at what happens to women within the judicial system, as victims of crime—specifically sexual crime—as vulnerable witnesses and as offenders. At some stage, we may want to consider the last category. There is no doubt that women are fast-tracked through the system and end up in jail more quickly
than men do. The question whether girls are judged differently from boys in the children's panel system also merits examination.
It is important that we recognise, when we are talking about the issues raised by Gil—and I thank him for bringing the motion before the Parliament—the way in which, in the crime of rape, women are blamed for being in their position. Society instinctively blames women for being there, in order, somehow, to justify that appalling crime and to find a reason for it that is attached to women and not to its perpetrator.
As Malcolm Chisholm mentioned, a great deal of work was done, before the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, around the document "Towards a Just Conclusion". That document, and the work around it, recognised that women do not have equal access to and equal treatment under the law, particularly in relation to their experience as witnesses. I emphasise the urgency with which that work should be revisited. I hope that the minister will be able to reassure us, particularly on the treatment of women who are being cross- examined by the man who is accused of raping them. What civil rights can we possibly be seeking to defend in putting even one woman in that position?
I regret to say that the response that I received from Jim Wallace was rather cold and academic, despite the fact that this cannot be seen as a cold and academic problem. Perhaps we need a legal system that not only deals with the problems of the real world, but reacts and feels like the real world does. There is no doubt that the minister understands the anger that society in general feels about the treatment of women in rape cases. As a result of the actions of one brave survivor, who spoke out about her experience, I hope that we will begin to have a legal system that responds to that treatment of women. It is entirely unacceptable that anyone should ever be traumatised in such a way again.
I would have thought that any innocent man, wrongly accused, would have been prepared to cede the right to cross-examine. He would not want to traumatise further a woman if he himself felt that he was being treated unfairly by the system. We must apply all the fine legal brains that we can find to achieving a solution. In particular, we have to thank the survivor who brought the problem to the attention of Scottish society.
In my view, politics is not just about identifying problems; it is about managing and solving them. There is no doubt that women's organisations and women generally—and, broadly, society—want us to see the big picture. They want us to recognise that maintaining the right to conduct such a cross- examination would be a grotesque perversion. We have to find a way of ensuring that people get a fair trial but that, nevertheless, the cost of that fair trial is not the further abuse of the woman who stands as a witness.
I echo what has been said about the importance of supporting women's organisations and about the fact that those organisations were set up not by statute, but by women who saw the need and the problem. We should be supporting those organisations fully.
I hope that even this small debate may play some part in moving things forward and in ensuring that the Scottish Parliament does not inhibit the finding of a solution to the problem. I hope that women in Scotland find the same protection under the law as has been put in place for women in England and Wales.
I apologise to those speakers whom I have been unable to call. I have to bring the open part of the debate to a close and ask Angus MacKay to respond to the debate on behalf of the Executive.
I have heard Gil Paterson speak on a number of occasions in the Parliament, and I can say that on none of them has he spoken with the passion that he brought to tonight's debate. It is clear that his sentiments are sincere and genuine. I congratulate him on securing the debate. As end- of-day debates often are, it has been a valuable opportunity to put a spotlight on issues about which there is remarkable cross-party unanimity and concern, and to take the time to reflect sensibly on how we can move forward on important issues. I would like to acknowledge at the beginning of my speech that this is a very serious and important subject.
I welcome the report of Soroptimist International, which has been referred to on a number of occasions in the debate. It contains a number of important and constructive recommendations on the offence of rape, and on how the system interacts with victims of that crime. I also welcome the more general contributions to the debate. As Gil Paterson pointed out earlier, it is simply not possible to address in detail all of the points that have been raised, although I would be happy to take on board any concerns that members wish to raise with me in writing. I will explore any questions that they might have and will respond to them in full.
It is important for me to acknowledge early in my speech that rape is—as other members have stated—the most serious of all sexual offences. Rape is a common law offence defined as sexual
intercourse by a man with a woman, achieved by the overcoming of her will. Its severity is recognised by the punishment for its commission of up to life imprisonment.
More than that, rape is a severely traumatic crime for the victim. We recognise that it takes great courage for rape victims to speak to the police. There is fear that they will not be believed; and fear, perhaps, of reprisals from their attackers. Victims also fear having to live again through the details of the crime when they speak to the police or the prosecutor. Beyond that, there is fear of giving evidence in court and being cross- examined, perhaps humiliatingly, in public on extremely personal and distressing matters. It is understandable that a major part of the soroptimists' report deals with the treatment of rape victims by the criminal justice system, including the courts. I will discuss briefly a number of initiatives that have been taken in this area and others that are under consideration.
The Executive is determined that everyone who works in the criminal justice system should be properly aware of the trauma and distress that rape and other sexual offences cause to the victims of such crimes. It is essential that procedures are in place that minimise the stress imposed by appearances in court, for example. It is equally important that the police, court staff, Victim Support volunteers and procurators fiscal behave with sensitivity and understanding in their personal contact with victims and that they treat victims with care and respect.
The first and vital contact will be with the police. The police today appreciate fully victims' fears— Lyndsay McIntosh acknowledged the work of the police. They also recognise the importance of dealing with victims of alleged rape as sensitively and professionally as possible. All probationers are given training in dealing with the victims of sex offences and that training is followed by in-depth training at all levels. Rape victims are offered the choice of being interviewed by male or female officers. All Scottish forces have rape interview suites on site in police stations in all areas, or have made provision to use appropriate facilities through their local social work departments, as recommended in the soroptimists report. Police forces continually monitor their handling of such cases, with a view to improving both their handling and the suitability of existing premises for interviewing purposes.
The next key contact is likely to be with the procurator fiscal. Fiscals have been issued with detailed guidance on the investigation of serious offences, including rape and other serious sex offences. That guidance is the subject of continuous review. Training events are held from time to time throughout the procurator fiscal service to supplement that guidance, and training is provided on aspects of forensic and medical evidence—as recommended by the soroptimists' report.
Precognition, which is also mentioned in the report, is an essential part of the procurator fiscal's investigation of serious crime. It provides an opportunity for the prosecution to explain procedures and the likely time scale of proceedings to the victim, and to identify the precognoscer as a point of contact for the duration of the case. The precognition process, therefore, provides a framework for personal contact with victims and vulnerable witnesses.
Voluntary organisations can and do have an important role to play in providing support and practical help.
Will the minister give way?
Yes, of course.
I am sorry to interrupt, but I have a question on procurators fiscal before the minister moves on. Is it possible to find out how many reports were submitted to the procurator's office over the past year, how many were not pursued and what the reasons were for non-pursual? That information relates to how we can start to address the issue of convictions.
To be completely honest, I do not know whether that is possible. I am more than happy to investigate, although I think it unlikely that the procurator fiscal will provide the reasons why cases were not proceeded upon. I will examine the matter and write to Margaret Curran.
On the issue of sexual assault, I am sure that the minister will be aware that it can be much worse than rape, because an artificial object can be involved. When the minister talks about rape, does he include those kinds of sexual assault, which technically are not rape?
That is an important point. Earlier in the debate, Lyndsay McIntosh acknowledged that sexual assault can have an equally horrifying impact on victims. I think that I deal with that issue later in my speech. If not, I apologise.
I was talking about the role of voluntary organisations. When the victim of a serious sexual offence reports the crime to the police, the police ask if they would like support from Victim Support. Not all victims might wish to have such support at the time, or they might have other sources of help, such as Rape Crisis. However, the opportunity should always be available and we recognise the importance of the service offered by Victim Support by providing significant funding for it— £1.5 million annually—so that a service can be
made available across the country. In addition, we are funding witness support schemes to provide support witnessethrough the court s, including victims. process for all The soroptimists made a number of recommendations about the treatment of victims who are giving evidence in trials. That issue is best considered in the context of the then Scottish Office consultation document on vulnerable and intimidated witnesses, "Towards a Just Conclusion", which has been referred to. That paper recognised that victims of rape and serious sexual assault are a special category of intimidated witness. Often, they have been placed in a special position of fear by the nature of the offence. They face particular difficulties because of the intimate matters with which the investigation and trial might be concerned, and the distress of confronting the accused during the trial.
"Towards a Just Conclusion" noted that the law of evidence in Scotland already restricts the extent to which questioning on the alleged victim's sexual history and character should be permitted. Questioning should be permitted only after application by the defence to the judge, when such evidence is clearly relevant to the particular charge, or when the court considers that it is in the interests of justice.
Many people have referred to defendants defending themselves and use that as a tactic to harass and demean the victim in order to win the case. Will the Executive take on board that concern and come up with a scheme in which a third party can be involved? At the very least, there should be no point of contact between the accused and the victim, nor should it be possible for someone accused of rape to pursue the victim face to face. The accused and the victim must be separated at all times.
I take that point and will try to address it, if not head on, at least in passing.
The court has the discretion at any time to limit the extent of questioning or evidence. In the event that questioning about previous sexual history is permitted by the court, the prosecutor and the judge have a duty to ensure that the victim is not subjected to aggressive or abusive cross- examination. However, the responses to the consultation document criticised the operation of those provisions—as Mr Paterson alluded to—and the protection that is given to victims by courts. We will, therefore, be considering what is required to deal with the way in which the provisions work in practice. I hope that that provides some comfort.
"Towards a Just Conclusion" did not recommend extending alternative ways of giving evidence— such as by closed-circuit television—to victims of sex offences as it did to other witnesses under specific threat. Instead, it recommended that further research into the ways in which victims of sexual offences give evidence was required. That recommendation received a mixed response during consultation. Some organisations commented that no further research was required.
The consultation document generated a large number of responses, which the Executive has analysed. We are now considering how to take the paper to its next stage. The soroptimists' report, along with other responses, will be taken into account as part of that. I commit the Executive this evening to publishing an action plan within 90 days—before the end of April—which will set out how the Executive will deal with the recommendations in "Towards a Just Conclusion" and the time scale in which it will do so. I hope that that provides some comfort to members.
How much time do I have left, Presiding Officer?
Very little.
In that case I will come to a conclusion.
I would again like to welcome the opportunity that this debate has given us to consider a wide- ranging, complex and important subject and to acknowledge the valuable report produced by Soroptimist International. I have tried to describe some areas in which the Executive has made progress or is undertaking further work. I have noted what members have said and will consider how the Executive can take forward as quickly as possible the matters that have been raised.
Many members feel—absolutely properly— strongly about this issue. The important point to emphasise is that we will give the matters proper consideration. I hope that the two specific commitments that I have made tonight encourage members to believe that we will make early progress from this point onwards.
Meeting closed at 17:41.