Skip to main content

Courts: Rape Trials

Volume 699: debated on Thursday 28 February 2008

My Lords, we have no plans for offences of rape to be tried other than before a judge and jury. However, we will continue to look for ways to inform juries about the psychological reactions of rape victims in order to address commonly held myths and misconceptions.

My Lords, has my noble friend reflected on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, in a debate on rape late last year? He said that juries’ decisions often have,

“as much to do with a whole package of subliminal prejudices as … with the evidence”.—[Official Report, 29/11/07; cols. 1313-14.]

I understand he was reflecting a view widely held in the legal profession. If juries are so notoriously unreliable, why should we not review the system of jury trials and perhaps even consider specialist juries?

My Lords, I am reflecting rather a lot on the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, as we gallop through the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill in your Lordships’ House. I have reflected, and I do not want to criticise juries in the way that my noble friend has because I believe they are a critical component of our criminal justice system. There has been concern that misconceptions among the public in general about the psychological impact of rape and the reasons for delay on the part of a victim in reporting a rape to the police might perhaps be reflected within juries, but the answer to that is better general education.

My Lords, I suppose I have a right of reply. Does the Minister accept that I in no way suggested that there was any institutional perversity on the part of juries in relation to rape cases but made it clear that in the view of many members of the legal profession there are subliminal preconceptions and prejudices? In a situation where very often the only witnesses will be the defendant and the complainant, where a lot of drink has been taken and where the parties know each other well—they may have lived together or may even have been husband and wife at some stage—an objective dissertation is perhaps very difficult.

My Lords, the noble Lord explains very clearly why the conviction rate in this country is so low. There is a fundamental question about whether we wish to move away from the jury system. The Government do not think we should, but accepting the points raised by the noble Lord, we are thinking hard about what information might be given to juries so that they understand some of the psychological implications and the fact that many offenders are closely known to their victim.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the support he gives to juries and to their use in appropriate trials. He talked of offering further education to juries. Does he not think that that is a matter that is best left to the judges rather than to further guidance from the Government?

My Lords, I certainly pay tribute to members of the judiciary and to the expert way in which they conduct hearings. In 2006, a consultation posed a question about whether defence and prosecution lawyers should be able to call expert witnesses. The consensus was rather against that; there was a sense that that might confuse juries rather than help them. Further work is being undertaken to see whether there are other ways in which expert, impartial information might be made available to juries. I am sure that would be within the context of the overall oversight of the individual judge.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that we are far safer relying on the prejudices of 12 people rather than the prejudice of one?

My Lords, juries are an essential part of our criminal justice system. We have seen action to ensure that they reflect the full diversity of the communities that they serve. We should acknowledge that they have a vital role to play in public confidence.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that while what happens during the court process is very important, it is significant that large numbers of cases do not come to trial? Will he think about looking at what happens in New Zealand, where the number of cases that come to trial and the conviction rate are considerably higher?

My Lords, I know that New Zealand is often referred to as an example that we might look to, and I would never want to rule out the value of looking at international experience. We have considered it very carefully. As the noble Baroness will know, in New Zealand, there are two different sorts of crimes. Our worry is that adopting the New Zealand system would in many cases downgrade the offence. I am sure that there is more that the police and prosecution authorities can do. We have now made this a priority in public service agreements, and a lot more work is going on in terms of education and the appointment of specialist prosecutors and specialists on forces to improve the way in which these matters are dealt with.

My Lords, I am very pleased that my noble friend mentioned education. Does he agree that we should be working towards getting a higher conviction rate on rape? Does he further agree that trying to reduce the incidence of rape is equally or even more important? Does he support the White Ribbon Campaign, which is a male organisation that works with young boys and men to try through education to reduce the level of violence shown towards women? Does he agree that the Government should fund a long-term, sustained campaign of education of young boys to go on throughout their lives in order to engender respect for women?

My Lords, it is a very attractive invitation to spend the Government's money in front of your Lordships. I will resist that, but I will, without commitment, look into the question of funding and resources. I certainly agree with the general point that the more we can help to educate young people, in particular, in these matters, the better. Schools themselves have a part to play through the education programmes that they are required to undertake, but what my noble friend mentions sounds to me like an excellent programme.