header-logo header-logo

24 May 2023
Issue: 8026 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Overhaul of sexual offences prosecutions proposed by Law Commission

Complainants in rape and sexual offences cases could have an automatic right to give evidence in private or via a live link, under an overhaul of the rules.

A Law Commission consultation on ‘Evidence in sexual offences prosecutions’, published this week, proposes changes to counter common misconceptions about rape and improve the treatment of complainants.

For example, complainants often fear that deeply personal material will be revealed, even where it is not relevant. The commission therefore proposes a ‘bespoke regime for access, disclosure and use of complainants’ personal records, including counselling notes’, with judicial oversight of whether and how these records should be used. The judge would consider the complainant’s right to privacy, the importance of the records to the defendant’s case, and wider societal interests.

Restrictions would be tightened up regarding evidence of complainants’ sexual behaviour and compensation claims—defence lawyers sometimes suggest to juries that allegations are being made for financial gain. When deciding whether to admit such evidence, the judge would consider factors such as the right to a fair trial and the risk of perpetuating myths and misconceptions.

Complainants would be offered independent legal advice and representation so they can make informed decisions on the way their evidence is given and take part in decisions about the use of their sensitive personal information.

The Law Commission also considers the use of educational tools to minimise the impact on jury decision-making of myths about rape, for example, through expert evidence.

Common myths include that victims will be visibly distraught when describing what happened, and that rapes will always be reported promptly.

Finally, the commission asks whether trials should be held in specialist courts with personnel trained in trauma-informed practices.

Professor Penney Lewis, criminal law commissioner, said: ‘The way that the criminal justice system handles rape and serious sexual offences still leaves prosecutions at risk from the impact of pervasive rape myths, and can often cause distress and trauma.’

Law Society president Lubna Shuja said it was ‘vital’ that complainants’ experience of the trial process be ‘as trauma-free as possible’.

Responses to the consultation are welcomed until 29 September 2023, and can be submitted here.

Issue: 8026 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Procedure & practice
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll