Is Rape Always Serious?

This week former Crimewatch presenter Nick Ross found himself in hot water for suggesting that not all rapes are equally serious.

The presenter said in his new book that it has become ‘sacrilege to suggest that there can be any gradation: rape is rape. The real experts, the victims, know otherwise’. Subsequently, he was criticised widely in the press and social media.

The former Justice Secretary Ken Clarke found himself subject to similar criticism in May 2011, when he appeared to make a distinction between rapes and serious rapes.

So is all this criticism justified? Are all rapes equally serious?

For me at least, the answer is resoundingly no. Not all rapes are equally serious. But all rapes are serious. Rape attacks the very core of an individual. It attacks a person’s right to determine who they will share humankind’s greatest intimacy with. Any attack on that right is serious. But is does not follow, as a matter of logic, that all such attacks are equally serious.

Imagine, for example, that all rapes are punished by a sentence of five years imprisonment. Then imagine a young teenage couple. They have attended a party, consumed copious amounts of alcohol and engage in sexual intercourse. During intercourse the female asks her boyfriend to stop. The female’s consent has been withdrawn. Under the influence of alcohol and in the moment he refuses to do so, although the girlfriend does not resist. This is rape, and it is rightly regarded as rape. He will be imprisoned for five years

Now imagine that the young teenage female from the couple had instead attended the party alone and consumed copious amounts of alcohol. On the way home she is pulled into a car by an unknown male that overpowers her despite her best efforts. She is taken to his property and prevented from leaving. She is then beaten and raped. She is beaten again and pushed out on the street the following morning. The male has raped the female and will also be imprisoned for five years.

Is it right that these wholly different situations are punished in exactly the same way? I am sure that most people would conclude that the male in the second case deserves to be punished more severely than the boyfriend. If he deserves to be more severely punished it must be because his crime was more serious. They were both cases of rape but one was more serious.

The boyfriend’s actions were undoubtedly serious; he violated his girlfriend’s right to determine when she will be intimate. However, the unknown male’s crime was grossly worse for a number of reasons. Firstly, he was entirely unknown to the female victim. She had at least decided to be intimate with her boyfriend. Secondly, she was overpowered despite resisting. Thirdly, she was falsely imprisoned. Finally, she was violently beaten twice. The second example of rape was more serious, even though the first rape was also serious.

To answer the question in the title, all rapes are serious. But some rapes are undeniably more serious. To deny this would be a disservice to those very unfortunate victims of brutal rapes.

What are your thoughts?

‘Terror’ Attack in London: What is Terrorism?

Yesterday's news brought us the harrowing story that a man has been killed in a machete attack in Woolwich, south-east London.

It has been confirmed that two suspects have been shot and wounded by the police. They have now been arrested in connection with the murder. It has been reported that the dead man was a soldier, although this remains unconfirmed.

The Government has confirmed that it is treating the attack as a terrorist incident. Prime Minister David Cameron has said the UK will ‘never buckle’ in the face of terror attacks.

Early reports have alleged that the suspects are extremist Islamists, who carried out the attack as part of a jihadist-inspired fight against the west.

Footage has emerged of one man with bloody hands wielding a bloodied meat cleaver and making political statements. The man said: ‘I apologise that women have had to witness this today, but in our land our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don’t care about you.’ It has also been reported that the men were heard to say: ‘Allahu Akbar [God is Great]’.

In the wake of the attack a number of individuals have collectively expressed their disgust on social networking websites. Many have called for the death penalty for the responsible persons and have blamed the Islamic faith for the attack. The Muslim Council of Britain has said that the attack is barbaric and has no basis in Islam.

I believe it is important to add that conclusions should not be so readily drawn when so little is known about the attack. Moreover, sweeping conclusions should never be drawn from one incident. Justice should be permitted to take its course.

Doubtlessly, a very thorough investigation will now be conducted. In due course, if there is sufficient evidence, charges will be brought against certain individuals. It seems reasonable to assume that the relevant individuals will be charged with murder.

Terrorism in the UK

The attack is being treated as a terrorist incident. So what exactly is ‘terrorism’? Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism as: 

• the use or threat of ‘action’,
• which is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
• which is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, ideological or racial cause.

‘Action’ includes:

• serious violence against a person,
• serious damage to property,
• endangering a person’s life (other than the life of the person committing the action),
• creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
• anything designed to seriously interfere with or seriously disrupt an electronic system.

The definition of terrorism is very widely drawn and basically involves the use or threat of violence for political, religious, ideological or racial causes.

If the reports of today’s incident are true then it certainly falls within the definition of terrorism and is a terrorist incident.

So how would that affect any future trial? As explained above any suspect is likely to face a murder charge. If they are found guilty then the fact the act was terrorism must be taken into account when sentencing the individual. Section 30 of the Counter-Terrorism provides that a judge considering the seriousness of certain offences (including murder) must determine if the offence has a terrorism connection. If there is a terrorism connection the judge must treat it as an aggravating factor. An aggravating factor is a factor which makes an offence more serious and will normally lead to a longer sentence.

In the case of murder, the individual would automatically receive a life sentence, but the terrorism connection would affect the minimum term imposed on the offender. The minimum term is the minimum amount of time the offender will be in prison before they can be considered for release on licence.

What happened yesterday was almost certainly a ‘terrorism’ incident. It is to be hoped that the responsible individuals are brought to justice. In the meantime, my thoughts are with the deceased’s family.

How Should we Approach Sex Offences?

Last week some rather interesting remarks were made by a barrister. Barbara Hewson told online magazine Spiked that she thought the age of consent should be lowered to 13 to end the ‘persecution of old men’.

She also called for an end to the anonymity granted to complainants in sex cases and for a statute of limitations to prevent prosecutions after a substantial period of time has passed.

The NSPCC said the views were ‘outdated and ill-informed’. Hardwicke Chambers, from which Ms Hewson practises, released a statement dissociating itself from the comments. It said it was ‘shocked’ by the views expressed.

As expected, the views have been criticised widely by the public.

Now I certainly do not agree with the views of Ms Hewson. Having the age of consent set at 16 protects young and vulnerable individuals. And prosecutions should be possible however old an offence is, so long as a fair trial is possible.

However, Ms Hewson’s comments do at least focus attention on an area which needs to be addressed. The media coverage of the recent arrests of a number of high profile individuals will doubtlessly adversely and irreparably affect those individuals’ reputations, even if the investigations against them conclude without further action.

Is it right that individuals suffer the stigma attached to sexual offences when there is insufficient evidence against them to charge them, let alone convict them? In my view, it is not. It seems to me that, presently, society has somewhat abandoned the notion of innocent until proven guilty. There appears to be a perception that anyone linked with sexual offences is guilty and deserving of punishment. That view is not right in any progressive democratic society. An individual is innocent and should be free to conduct unimpeded their own business until the State can prove otherwise. Nevertheless, it is a view that society appears to have adopted. Accordingly the question arises of how we protect innocent individuals from the stigma attached to being accused of a sex offence.

The simple way would be to grant anonymity to individuals accused of sex crimes in the same way that complainants are granted anonymity. Under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 complainants are granted lifelong anonymity, even if their allegations do not lead to the conviction of another. I would not propose lifelong anonymity for suspects. But surely suspects should be granted anonymity at least until they are charged. In that way the reputations of suspects who are simply investigated are not marred by media attention. Arguably, anonymity should be granted until an individual is proven to be guilty and is convicted. Suspects were previously granted anonymity in the Sexual Offences Act 1976, but this was reversed in 1988.

The only conceivable concern about such a scheme is that it could prevent other alleged victims coming forward to report crimes also allegedly committed by the suspect. The Jimmy Savile case is a good example. Many victims only came forward once he had been publicly linked to sex crimes. Anonymity might have prevented this. However, in my view it would be preferable to protect innocent individuals until they are convicted and direct attention at encouraging the reporting of sex crimes. If victims felt confident to report crimes immediately the above concern about granting anonymity to suspects would not exist.

Ms Hewson’s comments might well have been extreme, but they at least focus attention on a subject that desperately needs attention.

What are your thoughts? Should we grant anonymity to suspects?

Huhne and Pryce Released from Prison

Today Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce have been released from prison following their convictions for perverting the course of justice.

They were released after serving eight weeks of an eight month prison sentence.

They were convicted after Ms Pryce accepted Mr Huhne’s speeding penalty points. He was in danger of losing his driving licence. For the full original story, see this article.

Huhne pleaded guilty on the first day of his trial. Pryce was convicted at her second trial. Her first trial collapsed following concerns about the jury. On both occasions she pleaded the defence of marital coercion.

The pair is awaiting a decision on how much of the prosecution’s cost they will have to pay. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is claiming £108,541 from Huhne. It is claiming £48,695 from Pryce.

Home Detention Curfew

Huhne and Pryce only served one quarter of their sentences. Normally, prisoners are released on licence at the half way point of their sentence. However the Home Detention Curfew (found in section 246 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003) provides that prisoners can be released on licence earlier. Prisoners will be subject to a curfew and electronically monitored (known as ‘tagging’).

Some prisoners are exempt from the Home Detention Curfew scheme, but for those who are eligible, most prisoners will be released on Home Detention Curfew. The scheme is designed to help reintegrate prisoners back into society.

Press Regulation Reforms Delayed

It has been announced that the plans for a new royal charter to regulate the press have been delayed.

The charter is designed to lay down a framework which will allow the creation of a new body to regulate the press, following proposals made by the Leveson Inquiry. Details of the proposals and the charter can be found in this original article.

The charter was to have been examined by the Privy Council, the body which advices the monarch on which charters to grant, on 15 May. However, this has now been delayed so that proposals made by the press itself can be examined.

The proposals, which are backed by most newspapers, differ in a number of ways to the charter proposed by the government.

The press’s proposals would:

• remove Parliament’s power to change future changes to regulation. Instead the regulator, trade bodies and the ‘recognition panel’ would have to agree changes;
• the members of the panel would be selected by an appointments committee chaired by a retired Supreme Court Justice and include one representative of the industry’s interests, one representing the public interest and one public appointments assessor nominated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments;
• remove a ban on former editors sitting in the panel;
• give consumers a say on the industry’s proposals;
• make group complaints more difficult; and
• amend the power of the new regulator to ‘direct’ the nature, extent and placement of corrections and apologies. Instead, it will have the power to ‘require’.

Now it always desirable to have a dialogue in a free and democratic society, but, in my view, the alternative proposed by the press is wholly unnecessary. For the reasons given in the original article on this topic, the charter proposed by the Government is perfectly acceptable, posing no risk to free speech. Assertions to the contrary are either misplaced or deliberately misleading.

It is to be hoped that an acceptable outcome can be reached in the near future so that a system of effective regulation can be put in place.