"THE law officers attach a great deal of importance to ensuring we fulfil our obligations to victims.”
This statement, from the Crown Office, was in response to a damning report by the Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland into the way victims of sexual crimes are dealt with by the justice system.
It was made only last November but already advocates for victims will be questioning the commitment of the Crown to honouring those words.
As of this week, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) will take a new approach to dealing with situations where a complainer in a serious sexual offence case becomes reluctant to testify.
The Crown said it has found itself in a position where the complainer's views dictate whether a case proceeds or not, with cases "almost never" proceeding where the victim changes their mind about continuing with the prosecution process.
This leads to concerns that the complainer and the wider public are left at risk as violent individuals escape prosecution. COPFS, in a letter to Rape Crisis Scotland, points to case law from the European Court of Human Rights where cases that do not proceed due to disengagement from the victim have left the relevant prosecution service vulnerable when the accused carries out further serious offences.
Responsibility for public safety seems a terrible burden to place on women who are recovering from trauma.
This sounds rather like the Crown is keen to protect itself at the cost of protecting victims but it is very careful to couch its new policy in terms of a thoughtful, victim-centred approach.
Cases, it says, will be considered on an individual basis and all supports put in place where a victim begins to change their mind about giving evidence.
It is not, it says, a "fundamental shift" but rather "a re-balancing".
Rape Crisis Scotland is unconvinced. It fears women will be forced to testify and risk a warrant being issued for their arrest if they refuse.
Women under pressure may claim they lied about their attack in order to avoid the court process. It could set back progress made with rape survivors when confidence in the system is already low.
COPFS met with Rape Crisis Scotland last August as part of meetings with stakeholders to discuss the new plans. Rape Crisis Scotland must be wondering why it bothered, given its views seem to have been comprehensively overlooked.
The COPFS change of tactic comes against a backdrop of poor conviction rates for rape and attempted rape. The conviction rates for rape and attempted rape in Scotland are currently at their lowest level in eight years.
Scottish Government figures show 39 per cent of those taken to court in 2016/17 were found guilty, down from 49 per cent the year before. There was a rise in court proceedings but a drop in convictions.
It would be hoped attitudes to rape have moved on to a point where women could also be confident a jury is not judging them. But a Scottish Social Attitudes survey showed three in five people in Scotland think a woman is not at all to blame for being raped if she wears revealing clothing or is drunk. So, we have a system with potential for hostility to victims on several sides.
The Inspectorate of Prosecutions in Scotland report quoted women saying they felt re-traumatised by the court process, calling the court system "degrading" and "terrifying". In light of the report, the prosecution service signed an agreement with Rape Crisis Scotland, designed to have victims of sexual crime give feedback on the court experience.
It seems an odd move from collaboration to public loggerheads but perhaps the prosecution service wasn't expecting such a firm pushback on the issue. As it is, politicians across parties have criticised the change.
Usually the interests of the public and the interests of the individual are aligned but in sexual offence cases this is not always the case. The needs of the victim must be paramount. Where the Crown has an obligation to protect the public interest, this creates a real dilemma and one that is only solvable by making the court system more efficient and focused on the needs of victims. Without this, conviction rates will not increase and no one's interests will be served.
That women would rather see their attacker go unpunished than face a court speaks to how the system fails them. Among the noise created by the outrage at the COPFS's latest announcement, there must be calls for improvements to the system: for fixed trial dates, faster processes and support in court to name a few.
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