Worrying & Dangerous Ground to Tread!

I completely agree with the argument put forward by PCC Vera Baird, in The Guardian article below. Having been a former police officer who was also trained as a sexual offences officer, I have dealt with numerous rape victims.

Deciding to report a rape isn't an easy thing to do; not only because a victim has to recount the incident, and go through the trauma of whether she (or he, but in this article I will focus on female victims, as the implications are often different between the genders) will be believed or judged in any way. If sufficient time hasn't lapsed then they have to undergo an intrusive intimate medical examination and have samples taken, and then the gruelling task of having a lengthy statement taken begins; where minute details are taken in a painstaking process. Then there is the encounter with family, loved ones and friends - how will they react; supportive, unable to deal with it, be in a position to handle their own emotions? Then there is the fear of the court process, being judged, grilled, reliving the trauma they so desperately want to erase from their memory...

Therefore this ruling, is like a step back even further into the 'dark ages' where there is the potential for future victims to feel even more like they, themselves are on trial, having to not only discuss any previous sexual encounters where necessary, but feeling like they need to justify their behaviour.

Let's take this debate away from Ched Evans; because it's not necessarily about this case, or the individuals involved; so I don't want to get into whether he was innocent or guilty, what I want to explore is the impact this ruling will have on rape victims as a whole, and what lengths defence lawyers will potentially go to, to bring this ruling into play. If you were a defence lawyer, let's face it why wouldn't you?

Will the ruling in this case be the rarity that some are alluding to, or has this opened the floodgates for defence lawyers to venture down this path when their client, as most undoubtedly do, claims consensual sex occurred.

Consent has always been difficult to deal with; as in most cases there are no witnesses, so it's always a thing that's up for contention at court. To bring sexual history, encounters or patterns into a more prominent position, is going to put even more pressure, responsibility and onus onto the victim to prove their character, honesty and integrity, as opposed to an alleged perpetrator.

Moving away from previous history of the victim, another key pivotal question that needs to be addressed in a clear and concise way, is whether a victim who has consumed a substantial amount of alcohol is in any fit state to consent at all. This is sadly, still very much a grey area in legal terms, and one that is open to abuse from interpretation, and I for one, would welcome and advocate for the recommendations of Dame Elish Angiolini to be addressed, in that she infers that 'if a person is severely intoxicated then they lose the capacity to consent to sex'.

In my experience as a former police officer seeing thousands upon thousands of pub/nightclub dwellers stumbling out of such places, having consumed so much alcohol that they can barely walk let alone stand upright, they are so spaced out, and half of the time cannot remember their name let alone where they live, so will take up residence on the footpath, door alleyway, and behave in ways they would never dream of without the alcohol induced frenzy, so how on earth by any stretch of the imagination in this day and age, where binge drinking is at its height, where it's seen as normal practice for men and women (especially in their teens, 20's and dare I say it even 30's), to get absolutely hammered and paralytic, and in turn potentially expose themselves to being vulnerable, can be in a position to apply enough logic to consent is beyond me.

It's time to provide legislative clarity to some of these grey areas. Grey areas should have no place in this day and age in the criminal justice process; where reputations and the future of either party can be destroyed and damaged.

Grey areas only serve to provide a licence for creative and skilful lawyers to potentially utilise loopholes, and to manipulate technicalities. Justice isn't a game. Real people are involved. Let's move away from it being a performance. Legislation should be clear and defined, with clear outcomes.

As a former police officer, and having been a psychotherapist for the last several years, I know that the trauma of being a rape victim, or a person wrongly accused has deep long term affects; both emotionally and psychologically as it is, without the extra difficulties and challenges thrown in by the processes, professionals and institutions supposedly there to help.

Click Here to see Vera Baird's comments in The Guardian