The Director of Public Prosecutions has been criticised for suggesting people who believe they have been raped but stay silent during their ordeal may give the impression they have consented to sex.
Alison Saunders said prosecutors considering rape cases must look at whether the suspect had a reasonable belief in consent.
But critics said it is common for rape victims to “freeze”, finding themselves unable to move during an attack, and said the justice system is continuing to fail victims of sexual violence.
Ms Saunders told the Evening Standard: “So in some of the cases you can see why even though the complainant may think they were raped, there was a reasonable belief that they had consented, either through silence or through other actions or whatever.
“We are there not just to be able to prosecute cases where there has been an offence, but also not to prosecute cases where there isn’t sufficient evidence.”
In response to the comments Rape Crisis England & Wales said there is a “moral and legal responsibility to actively seek any sexual partner’s consent”.
The charity added: “Through more than 40 years’ experience of providing frontline, specialist support to people whose lives have been impacted by sexual violence, we know it’s common for victims and survivors to freeze or flop, finding themselves unable to speak, fight back or even move, and that knowledge is backed up by a large body of independent evidence, of which the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is aware.”
Ms Saunders also described as “disappointing and irritating” the collapse of cases due to evidence not being disclosed as early as possible.
Surrey Police and Scotland Yard have announced reviews of their rape cases following the high-profile collapse of a number of trials, due to suspected flaws in investigations or concerns related to the disclosure of evidence.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here