Advertisement

Cross-examination, Fair Trial, and Survivor Justice in Rape

  • Olivia Smith
Chapter

Abstract

So far, I have argued that rape trials hold significant barriers to survivor justice because of difficult practicalities and a cultural scaffolding that reinforces the use of rape myths, sexual history evidence, and wider societal stereotypes to undermine survivors’ voices. This chapter will expand on the evidence of deep-rooted barriers to survivor consideration, first by outlining the use of manipulative cross-examination techniques and then by unpacking the competing justice interests discussed by judges and barristers. Rhetoric about ‘rebalancing the system’ has emerged in the last decade, with increasing recognition that victims of crime are voters who can be won over with promises of improved rights in the criminal justice system (Duggan & Heap, 2013). Despite this, vehement opposition from legal professionals occurs each time an increase in survivors’ rights is suggested (for example, Naseem Bajwa & Niculiu’s 2016, response to the idea of sexual history evidence reform). Until now, little has been known about how these competing considerations are actually discussed at trial. Court observations shed light on this, demonstrating that many legal professionals are sensitive to survivors’ well-being, but a blinkered interpretation of the right to a fair trial can limit the extent to which this sensitivity is acted upon. This arrives at the heart of the difficulty with rape trials in England and Wales: In order to protect the accused’s right to a fair trial, it is assumed that survivors must suffer. While cross-examination is mostly restricted to adversarial jurisdictions, the other tensions are present internationally because the same right to fair trial is balanced against the same needs of survivors. Without a significant reframing of the rights of the accused and other witnesses, then, the criminal justice system will remain a hostile place for survivors of rape. Ultimately, this means that criminal justice cannot be the sole arena for survivor justice, as survivors’ needs will never be the central priority.

References

  1. Bar Standards Board. (2005). Guidance on witness preparation. Retrieved from https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/code-guidance/guidance-on-witness-preparation/
  2. Bar Standards Board. (2017). Bar Standards Board handbook: Including 9th edition of the code of conduct. London: Bar Standards Board.Google Scholar
  3. Barrett, D. (2013, February 16). Frances Andrade: New scandal as police deny counselling to other rape victims. Telegraph Online. Retrieved from www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9875034/Frances-Andrade-new-scandal-as-police-deny-counselling-to-other-rape-victims.html
  4. Baverstock, J. (2016). Process evaluation of pre-recorded cross-examination scheme (Section 28). London: Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
  5. Bentley, D., & Thomas, R. (2009). Fair trial. In M. Colvin & J. Cooper (Eds.), Human rights in the investigation and prosecution of crime (pp. 252–283). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bogan, P. (2009). Self-incrimination, the right to silence, and the reverse burden of proof. In M. Colvin & J. Cooper (Eds.), Human rights in the investigation and prosecution of crime (pp. 347–375). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Boyle, C. (2009). Reasonable doubt in credibility contests: Sexual assault and sexual equality. International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 13(4), 269–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brereton, D. (1997). How different are rape trials? A comparison of the cross-examination of complainants in rape and assault trials. British Journal of Criminology, 37(2), 242–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brienen, M. E. I., & Hoegen, E. H. (2000). Victims of crime in 22 European jurisdictions: The implementation of recommendation 85 (11) of the Council of Europe on the position of the victim in the framework of criminal law and procedure. Tilburg: Wolf Legal Productions.Google Scholar
  10. Burman, M. (2009). Evidencing sexual assault: Women in the witness box. The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice, 56(4), 379–398.Google Scholar
  11. Burton, M., Evans, R., & Sanders, A. (2007). Vulnerable and intimidated witnesses and the adversarial process in England and Wales. International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 11(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cahill, M. T. (2005). Three perspectives on criminal justice. Journal of Law and Policy, 13, 181–188.Google Scholar
  13. Chalmers, J. (2014). Independent legal representation for complainers in sexual offence cases. In J. Chalmers, F. Leverick, & A. Shaw (Eds.), Post-corroboration safeguards review: Report of the academic expert group (pp. 185–189). Edinburgh: Scottish Government.Google Scholar
  14. Council of Europe. (2012). Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  15. Council of Europe. (2015). Equal access to justice in the case-law on violence against women before the European Court of Human Rights. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  16. Criminal Justice Act 2003. London: HM Stationary Office.Google Scholar
  17. Crown Prosecution Service. (2016). Speaking to witnesses at court: CPS guidance. London: Crown Prosecution Service.Google Scholar
  18. Daly, K. (2016). Reconceptualising sexual victimisation and justice. In I. Vanfraechem, A. Pemberton, & F. Mukwiza Ndahinda (Eds.), Justice for victims: Perspectives on rights, transition and reconciliation (pp. 378–395). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Davies, M., Croall, H., & Tyrer, J. (2015). Criminal justice (5th ed.). Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
  20. Dickman, B., & Roux, A. (2005). Complainants with learning disabilities in sexual abuse cases: A 10-year review of a psycho-legal project in Cape Town, South Africa. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(3), 138–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dinos, S., Burrowes, N., Hammond, K., & Cunliffe, C. (2015). A systematic review of juries’ assessment of rape victims: Do rape myths impact on juror decision-making? International Journal of Law, Crime & Justice, 43(1), 36–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Doak, J. (2008). Victims’ rights, human rights and criminal justice: Reconceiving the role of third parties. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. Dublin Rape Crisis Centre. (1998). The legal process and victims of rape. Dublin: Dublin Rape Crisis Centre.Google Scholar
  24. Duggan, M., & Heap, V. (2013). Victims as vote-winners? The antisocial behaviour/hate crime nexus. Criminal Justice Matters, 94(1), 24–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ellison, L. (2000). Rape and the adversarial culture of the courtroom. In M. Childs & L. Ellison (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on evidence (pp. 39–57). London: Cavendish.Google Scholar
  26. Ellison, L. (2001). The adversarial process & the vulnerable witness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Ellison, L. (2007). Witness preparation and the prosecution of rape. Legal Studies, 27(2), 171–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ellison, L., & Munro, V. (2010). Getting to (not) guilty: Examining jurors’ deliberative processes in and beyond the context of a mock rape trial. Legal Studies, 30(1), 74–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. European Parliament. (2012). Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA. Brussels: European Parliament.Google Scholar
  30. Garvin, M., & Beloof, D. E. (2015). Crime victim agency: Independent lawyers’ for sexual assault victims. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 13, 67–88.Google Scholar
  31. Gerry, A. (2009). Victims of crime and the criminal justice system. In M. Colvin & J. Cooper (Eds.), Human rights in the investigation and prosecution of crime (pp. 447–468). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Gibson, B., Cavadino, P., & Faulkner, D. (2002). Introduction to the criminal justice process (2nd ed.). Winchester: Waterside Press.Google Scholar
  33. Greer, S. (2017). Implications of Brexit for the European Convention on Human Rights. E-International Relations. Retrieved from http://www.e-ir.info/2017/07/27/implications-of-brexit-for-the-european-convention-on-human-rights/
  34. Hamer, D. (2010). Probabilistic standards of proof, their complements and the errors that are expected to flow from them. University of New England Law Journal, 1(1), 71–107.Google Scholar
  35. The Havens. (2010). Wake up to rape: Research summary report. London: The Havens.Google Scholar
  36. Henderson, E. (2016). Best evidence or best interests? What does the case law say about the function of criminal cross-examination. International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 20(3), 83–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hlavka, H. R. (2014). Normalizing sexual violence: Young women account for harassment and abuse. Gender & Society, 28(3), 337–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate [HMCPSI]. (2013). Disclosure of medical records and counselling notes: A review of CPS compliance with rules and guidance in relation to disclosure of complainants’ medical records and counselling notes in rape and sexual offence cases. London: HMCPSI.Google Scholar
  39. HM Government. (2015). Sexual violence against children and vulnerable people: Progress report. London: HM Government.Google Scholar
  40. HM Government. (2017). Press release: New measures to allow ratification of Istanbul Convention. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-measures-to-allow-ratification-of-istanbul-convention
  41. Hoyano, L. (2014). What is balanced on the scales of justice? In search of the essence of the right to a fair trial. Criminal Law Review, 4(1), 4–29.Google Scholar
  42. Hoyano, L. (2015). Reforming the adversarial trial for vulnerable witnesses and defendants. Criminal Law Review, 2, 107–129.Google Scholar
  43. Hucklesby, A. (1997). Court culture: An explanation of variations in the use of bail by magistrates. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(2), 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Human Rights Act 1998. London: HM Stationary Office.Google Scholar
  45. Juries Act 1974. London: HM Stationary Office.Google Scholar
  46. Kagehiro, D. K. (1990). Defining the standard of proof in jury instructions. Psychological Science, 1(3), 194–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kebbell, M., O’Kelly, C., & Gilchrist, E. (2007). Rape victims’ experiences of giving evidence in English courts: A survey. Psychiatry, Psychology & Law, 14(1), 111–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kelly, L., & Lovett, J. (2009). Different systems, similar outcomes? Tracking attrition in reported rape cases in eleven countries. London: European Centre on Violence Against Women.Google Scholar
  49. Khan, J. (2013, February 13). Justice for Frances Andrade: A success or a failure? Huffington Post Online. Retrieved from www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/javed-khan/frances-andrade-justice_b_2678753.html
  50. Kirchengast, T. (2010). The integration of victim lawyers into the adversarial criminal trial. Australian and New Zealand Critical Criminology Conference Proceedings 2010, 1st–2nd July 2010, Sydney Institute of Criminology, University of Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
  51. Kirchengast, T. (2016). Enforceable rights for victims of crime in adversarial justice. Journal of Criminology, 3, 11–42.Google Scholar
  52. Konradi, A. (2007). Taking the stand. Wesport: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  53. Lando, H. (2009). Prevention of crime and the optimal standard of proof in criminal law. Review of Law and Economics, 5(1), 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Larcombe, W., Fileborn, B., Powell, A., Hanley, N., & Henry, N. (2016). ‘I think it’s rape and I think he would be found not guilty’: Focus group perceptions of (un)reasonable belief in consent in rape law. Social & Legal Studies, 25(5), 611–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lees, S. (1997). Carnal knowledge: Rape on trial. London: Women’s Press.Google Scholar
  56. Leveson, B. (2015). Review of efficiency in criminal proceedings. London: Judiciary of England and Wales.Google Scholar
  57. Loewy, A. H. (2010). Taking reasonable doubt seriously. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 85(1), 63–75.Google Scholar
  58. Londono, P. (2007). Positive obligations, criminal procedure and rape cases. European Human Rights Law Review, 2, 158–171.Google Scholar
  59. Matoesian, G. M. (1993). Reproducing rape: Domination through talk in the courtroom. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  60. MC v Bulgaria No. 39272/98, ECHR, December 2003.Google Scholar
  61. McGlynn, C., Downes, J., & Westmarland, N. (2017). Seeking justice for survivors of sexual violence: Recognition, voices and consequences. In M. Keenan & E. Zinsstag (Eds.), Sexual violence and restorative justice: Legal, social and therapeutic dimensions (pp. 179–191). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  62. McWilliams, M., & Ní Aoláin, F. (2016). Moving slowly to regulate and recognise: Human rights meets intimate partner sexual violence. In K. Yllö & M. G. Torres (Eds.), Marital rape: Consent, marriage and social change in global context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Ministry of Justice. (2011). Achieving best evidence in criminal proceedings: Guidance on interviewing victims and witnesses, and guidance on using special measures. London: Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
  64. Ministry of Justice. (2015). Code of practice for victims of crime. London: Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
  65. Murphy, W. J. (2001). The victim advocacy and research group: Serving a growing need to provide rape victims with personal legal representation to protect privacy rights and to fight gender bias in the criminal justice system. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 11(1), 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Naseem Bajwa, A., & Niculiu, E. (2016). Sexual history evidence: Fair game? Counsel Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.counselmagazine.co.uk/articles/sexual-history-evidence-fair-game
  67. Northern Ireland Law Commission. (2011). Vulnerable witnesses in civil proceedings. Belfast: Northern Ireland Law Commission.Google Scholar
  68. Powles, S. (2009). Evidence. In M. Colvin & J. Cooper (Eds.), Human rights in the investigation and prosecution of crime (pp. 311–346). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  69. R v Barker [2010] EWCA Crim 4.Google Scholar
  70. Raitt, F. (2010). Independent legal representation for complainants in rape trials. In C. McGlynn & V. Munro (Eds.), Rethinking rape law: International and comparative perspectives (pp. 67–280). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  71. Raitt, F. (2011). Independent legal representation: Delivering justice or just raising expectations? Fifth North East Conference on Sexual Violence, 28 November 2011, University of Durham Queens Campus, Durham.Google Scholar
  72. Rock, P. (1993). The social world of an English Crown Court. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  73. Sanders, A., & Jones, I. (2007). The victim in court. In S. Walklate (Ed.), Handbook of victims and victimology (pp. 282–308). Cullompton: Willan.Google Scholar
  74. Sexual Offences Act 2003. London: HM Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  75. Smith, A. (2016). Representing rapists: The cruelty of cross-examination and other challenges for a feminist criminal defense lawyer. American Criminal Law Review, 53, 255–310.Google Scholar
  76. Stanko, B., & Williams, E. (2009). Reviewing rape and rape allegations in London: What are the vulnerabilities of the victims who report to the police? In M. A. H. Horvath & J. Brown (Eds.), Rape: Challenging contemporary thinking (pp. 207–225). Cullompton: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  77. Stern, V. (2010). The Stern review: A report by Baroness Stern CBE of an independent review into how rape complaints are handled by public authorities in England and Wales. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  78. Taslitz, A. (1999). Rape and the culture of the courtroom. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Temkin, J. (2000). Prosecuting and defending rape: Perspectives from the bar. Journal of Law and Society, 27(2), 219–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Travis, A. (2013, July 8). Theresa May criticises human rights convention after Abu Qatada affair. Guardian Online. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/08/theresa-may-human-rights-abu-qatada
  81. UN General Assembly. (1985). Declaration of basic principles of justice for victims of crime and abuse of power: Resolution (A/RES/40/34). New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  82. Wemmers, J. (2009). Where do they belong? Giving victims a place in the criminal justice process. Criminal Law Reform, 20(4), 395–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Westera, N. J., Kebbell, M. R., & Milne, B. (2016). Want a better criminal justice response to rape? Improve police interviews with complainants and suspects. Violence Against Women, 22(14), 1748–1768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Westmarland, N. (2005). Rape and human rights: A feminist perspective. Thesis PhD, Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of York, York.Google Scholar
  85. Wheatcroft, J., & Ellison, L. (2012). Evidence in court: Witness preparation and cross-examination style effects on adult witness accuracy. Behavioural Sciences & the Law, 30(6), 821–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wilson, L. (2005). Independent legal representation for victims of sexual assault: A model for delivery of legal services. Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice, 23(2), 249–312.Google Scholar
  87. Wolhuter, L. (2010). German and Swedish procedures as models for the empowerment of racial minority women in rape trials. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 38(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wright, D., & Hall, M. (2007). How a ‘reasonable doubt’ instruction affects decisions of guilt. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(1), 91–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Y v Slovenia No. 41107/10, May 2015.Google Scholar
  90. Zydervelt, S., Zajac, R., Kaladelfos, A., & Westera, N. (2016). Lawyers’ strategies for cross-examining rape complainants: Have we moved beyond the 1950s? British Journal of Criminology, 57(3), 551–569.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olivia Smith
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Humanities and Social SciencesAnglia Ruskin UniversityCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations