[trigger warning]
I've written letters to the obvious contacts now, and I'll post any replies I get here. More coverage of this is at Shakesville and The Curvature.
Full text of the letters below (very long):
Firstly, to the ministers:
Dear Kenneth Clarke QC MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
I note that in the Justice section of the coalition's Programme for Government is "We will extend anonymity in rape cases to defendants." I ask that this proposal be dropped.
The Conservative government of 1988 rightly abolished anonymity for defendants, as it was reducing the likelihood that victims of rape would report it. Studies such as the British Crime Survey show that only around 10% of victims of rape report the attack to the police. Of the reports made to the police, only around 6% result in a conviction. Combining these two figures shows that a rapist has around a 99% chance of getting away with their crime.
The recent review by Baroness Stern into rape reporting for the Equalities Office briefly examined the issue of anonymity for defendants, and concluded that no change should be made without further research. The review made a number of other recommendations for policy and practice which should surely be implemented before a change such as this.
The arguments for providing anonymity for rape defendants hinge on two premises - that a false accusation of rape is so damaging to someone's reputation that anonymity should be granted to defendants who have not yet been convicted, and that false accusations of rape are sufficiently commonplace for this to be a serious problem.
The first premise may be true, although the continuing professional success of a number of high-profile acquittals suggests otherwise. However, it seems implausible that an acquittal in a rape case is more damaging to one's reputation than an acquittal in any other case. There is no suggestion in the Programme for Government that anonymity will be given to defendants on trial for more serious crimes such as murder or terrorism, or for other similarly serious violent crimes.
The second premise is clearly false. Research conducted by the government and others - for example Home Office Research Study 293, conducted by Kelly, Lovett and Regan - shows that there is a very low false report rate (HORS293 estimates around 3%). Furthermore, studies have shown that in most false reports, no perpetrator is named. The number of false reports where a named perpetrator exists for their reputation to be harmed is vanishingly low.
There are, additionally, major advantages for defendants in rape trials to be publicly named. Research by Lisak and Miller in their 2002 paper "Repeat Rape and Multiple Offending Among Undetected Rapists" shows that the majority - around 85% - of rapes are carried out by serial offenders who have committed other rapes, sexual assaults, and non-sexual violent crimes.
Furthermore, this study and other similar studies carried out since show that these serial rapists intentionally seek out victims whom they perceive as vulnerable. They use the widely believed myths about rape - that the victim is partly responsible if they had been drinking, or wearing revealing clothing, that the majority of rapes are stranger rapes combined with other forms of physical violence, and so on - to ensure that their victims are likely to be disbelieved if they do report.
For this reason, they usually, as the conviction figures show, are able to get away with their crimes, and often continue committing them.
Because the reporting rate for rape is so low, it is only for the most extreme predators that multiple reports are likely. If only 10% of victims report, then it is unlikely that the police will receive two reports for the same rapist until they have committed around twenty offences. Depending on the quality of the local police and their approach to rape, which is incredibly variable across the country, it could take even longer before the police realise that they are dealing with a serial rapist for whom there is an excellent chance of conviction.
The recent high profile case of John Worboys, recently convicted of multiple rapes carried out over several years is an example of this. He was arrested after carrying out perhaps hundreds of rapes in London. While the Metropolitan police were at fault in this case for not properly dealing with previous reports of his actions, it is also notable that, following his arrest, eighty-five women came forward to report that they had also been attacked by him, and the CPS was able to secure twelve convictions, as a result of which Worboys is thankfully serving a life sentence.
Had Worboys been granted anonymity, none of this would have happened. He may even have been able to be acquitted of the rape he was charged for - a single report being harder to convict with than the massed evidence of eighty-five independent reports - but would almost certainly have received a much lighter sentence even if convicted.
The conviction rate for rape is so appallingly low, and taking steps such as this simply makes avoiding suitable punishment easier for the serial sexual predators who commit most of the offences.
Furthermore, while this policy has been Liberal Democrat party policy since 2006, it was not in their manifesto, nor in the Conservative manifesto. It is not, therefore, a policy for which the coalition government can claim any form of public mandate. I hope that the government, in light of this and the concerns raised by numerous rape-prevention campaigners and victim support organisations, will drop this proposal from its programme.
Yours sincerely,
[me]
I sent similar letters by different routes to Lord McNally, Theresa May MP, and Lynne Featherstone MP, adjusting the wording slightly for their party affiliations and ministerial responsibilities. Hopefully at least one of them will read it.
Secondly, to the party whose fault this is:
Dear Liberal Democrats
The inclusion in the coalition government's Programme for Government of the proposal to grant anonymity to rape defendants drew to my attention that this has been the policy of your party since 2006.
Rape is a strongly gendered crime. Around 90% of the victims are women, and almost all of the perpetrators are men. It is also a crime which successive governments have failed to prosecute successfully. Studies such as the British Crime Survey show that only around 10% of victims of rape report the attack to the police. Of the reports made to the police, only around 6% result in a conviction. Combining these two figures shows that a rapist has a greater than 99% chance of getting away with their crime.
This proposal to grant anonymity will give significant advantage to rapists, and nothing to their victims.
The arguments for providing anonymity for rape defendants hinge on two premises - that a false accusation of rape is so damaging to someone's reputation that anonymity should be granted to defendants who have not yet been convicted, and that false accusations of rape are sufficiently commonplace for this to be a serious problem.
The first premise may be true, although the continuing professional success of a number of high-profile acquittals suggests otherwise. However, it seems implausible that an acquittal in a rape case is more damaging to one's reputation than an acquittal in any other case. There is no suggestion in the Programme for Government that anonymity will be given to defendants on trial for more serious crimes such as murder or terrorism, or for other similarly serious violent crimes.
The second premise is clearly false. Research conducted by the government and others - for example Home Office Research Study 293, conducted by Kelly, Lovett and Regan - shows that there is a very low false report rate (HORS293 estimates around 3%). Furthermore, studies have shown that in most false reports, no perpetrator is named. The number of false reports where a named perpetrator exists for their reputation to be harmed is vanishingly low.
There are, additionally, major advantages for defendants in rape trials to be publicly named. Research by Lisak and Miller in their 2002 paper "Repeat Rape and Multiple Offending Among Undetected Rapists" shows that the majority - around 85% - of rapes are carried out by serial offenders who have committed other rapes, sexual assaults, and non-sexual violent crimes.
Furthermore, this study and other similar studies carried out since show that these serial rapists intentionally seek out victims whom they perceive as vulnerable. They use the widely believed myths about rape - that the victim is partly responsible if they had been drinking, or wearing revealing clothing, that the majority of rapes are stranger rapes combined with other forms of physical violence, and so on - to ensure that their victims are likely to be disbelieved if they do report.
For this reason, they usually, as the conviction figures show, are able to get away with their crimes, and often continue committing them.
Because the reporting rate for rape is so low, it is only for the most extreme predators that multiple reports are likely. If only 10% of victims report, then it is unlikely that the police will receive two reports for the same rapist until they have committed around twenty offences. Depending on the quality of the local police and their approach to rape, which is incredibly variable across the country, it could take even longer before the police realise that they are dealing with a serial rapist for whom there is an excellent chance of conviction.
The recent high profile case of John Worboys, recently convicted of multiple rapes carried out over several years is an example of this. He was arrested after carrying out perhaps hundreds of rapes in London. While the Metropolitan police were at fault in this case for not properly dealing with previous reports of his actions, it is also notable that, following his arrest, eighty-five women came forward to report that they had also been attacked by him, and the CPS was able to secure twelve convictions, as a result of which Worboys is thankfully serving a life sentence.
Had Worboys been granted anonymity, none of this would have happened. He may even have been able to be acquitted of the rape he was charged for - a single report being harder to convict with than the massed evidence of eighty-five independent reports - but would almost certainly have received a much lighter sentence even if convicted.
The conviction rate for rape is so appallingly low, and taking steps such as this simply makes avoiding suitable punishment easier for the serial sexual predators who commit most of the offences.
Your party's federal constitution, in its preamble, contains the sentence:
Upholding these values of individual and social justice, we reject all prejudice and discrimination based upon race, colour, religion, age, disability, sex or sexual orientation and oppose all forms of entrenched privilege and inequality.
These are fine aims, though there seems to be no provision in your constitution that your party's policy be consistent with them. Nevertheless, it seems highly inappropriate for a party that claims to oppose "all forms of entrenched privilege and inequality" to be promoting a policy that will further increase the advantages that rapists have over their victims in the criminal justice system.
It seems even more inappropriate, and undemocratic as well, to have negotiated this policy into the Programme for Government despite it appearing nowhere in your manifesto. Its inclusion also goes against the recommendations of the recent Stern Review of rape reporting, which recommended that nothing be done in this area until research into the consequences could be carried out.
Please take the necessary steps to have this policy removed from the Programme of Government, at the very least until it receives a public mandate through being included in a national manifesto. I hope, furthermore, that you strongly consider removing this policy entirely as inconsistent with the stated aims of your party.
Yours faithfully,
[me]
Finally to my own Labour MP:
Dear Roberta Blackman-Woods MP,
I wrote to you twice during the previous government regarding the handling of aspects of the prosecution of rape cases, and you replied to inform me of the steps that the government had been taking to improve this and also of your own strong feelings that more still needed to be done.
The new coalition government has recently published its Programme for Government, containing a proposal to give anonymity to the defendants in rape trials. This will be a significant step backwards in the handling of rape by the criminal justice system, giving yet more advantages to rapists over their victims.
The arguments for providing anonymity for rape defendants hinge on two premises - that a false accusation of rape is so damaging to someone's reputation that anonymity should be granted to defendants who have not yet been convicted, and that false accusations of rape are sufficiently commonplace for this to be a serious problem. The former seems unlikely - especially when it is considered that for other serious violent crimes, including murder and terrorism, there is no proposal to provide defendants with anonymity, nor any public call for one. The latter is of course entirely untrue, as numerous research studies (for example, Home Office Research Study 293, conducted by Kelly, Lovett and Regan) have shown.
The disadvantages of such a provision are also obvious. The previous legislation allowing defendants anonymity was abolished in 1988 after it was found to be discouraging reporting. Research by Lisak and Miller in their 2002 paper "Repeat Rape and Multiple Offending Among Undetected Rapists" shows that the majority - around 85% - of rapes are carried out by serial offenders who have committed other rapes, sexual assaults, and non-sexual violent crimes. It is therefore likely, especially given the low proportion of rapes that are heard in court, that for most rapists who are charged it will not be their first offence, and there is an obvious public interest in encouraging other victims of the same attacker to come forward.
If this legislation had been in place recently, it is likely that John Worboys, for example, would only have been charged for one of his attacks, and would either have been acquitted and free to attack again, or at best received a much reduced sentence.
The proposal has been condemned by numerous anti-rape campaigners, victim support organisations, and women's groups. It is clearly not intended to help the victims of crime, but will instead provide shelter to some of the countries worst sexual predators.
I would appreciate it if you could pass my concerns to the appropriate ministers in the coalition government, and vote against any legislation containing this provision should it reach Parliament.
Thank you
Yours sincerely,
[me]
