---

Convicting Rapists/Protecting Victims

The hon. Lady asks what the Government have done. She does not know her subject. The Government have done a great deal to assist rape victims. Jury education is vital; the myths need to be dispelled. I have listened to what other Members have said, particularly the Opposition Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), many of whose comments were completely wrong. The Liberal Democrats have got it right. Jurors have to sit through training on their first day, when they are shown videos, given leaflets and told all sorts of things. People can do it; leaflets to guide people, not necessarily only in rape cases, but in any cases, could easily be produced. Generally speaking, however, people know what robbery is, but there are still myths around rape. The myths that there were when I was working on women's magazines are still there now, and we must tackle them if we are to convict more rapists. Over the years, I have heard all sorts of things about rape cases—““She wasn't upset enough,”” ““She wasn't traumatised,”” or ““She was truanting from school.”” Such allegations get thrown in to cast aspersions on a person's character. If the victim did not run away, fight back or scream, or if they knew the accused, or had had a drink or a joint, people almost believe that there was contributory negligence. That implies that the woman—such cases largely involve women, although not always—somehow brought it on herself. We owe it to justice to spell out that issue so that jurors know that those are all myths. If we are to consider the court experience, we need to do an awful lot more work on consent and what constitutes consent. Again, it is almost as if there were contributory negligence—““She accepted a lift from him,”” or ““She went for a drink with him, got in the car and went back to the flat; she knew what was going to happen.”” People believe that such prior activities constitute consent. That issue has to be spelt out to jurors far more explicitly. We must also consider the test of being beyond reasonable doubt. That needs to be spelled out to juries, particularly in these kinds of cases. I am sorry to say this, but far too many defence barristers say to people, ““If you have any doubt””. The test is whether something is beyond reasonable doubt, not any doubt. The victim statement should be given to the jury when it retires to consider its verdict. At the moment, only the alleged rapist's statement is given to the jury. If it is a long trial or there are multiple defendants—if, say, it is a gang rape—we only get their version, not the victim's. If the victim's version was given, we would serve justice very well. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has done a good job. If anybody has been through these experiences and wants to get in touch with me, I am happy to listen to their experiences.