News
Statement on the Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints
Below is a statement from the women whose personal and private messages were requested by the Scottish Parliament’s “Salmond Committee” and were handed to the Committee by the Crown Office as part of a Section 23 Order for messages belonging to Sue Ruddick.
In light of the decision taken by the Committee not to publish the messages received from the Crown Office under the Section 23 Order, we feel it is important that our voices are heard, where so far they have been secondary to the Committee’s inquiry.
We are deeply disappointed that the Committee saw fit to request messages between people identified by the Police and the Crown as victims of sexual harassment, some of whose identities are protected by a court order. We have no doubt that members of the Committee knew that vulnerable witnesses were involved when they made the request.
We are also deeply disturbed that the Crown has felt it appropriate to break the trust we placed in it. Having been let down by the Crown Office, we feel this unnecessary act will have done serious damage to progress made over the last few years in sexual assault cases. We urge the Crown to consider the grave consequences of their actions, and are actively considering further options.
Not a single one of these messages relates to the remit of the Committee or the Committee’s published approach to the inquiry. In short, what the Crown provided are personal communications between friends who supported each other during a traumatic time. Comments made by members of the committee, passing judgement on the motivations of women, describing women’s communications as “fair game” and raising questions as to the genuine nature of the complaints made, have caused considerable distress since the Order was placed and do a disservice to all women who have made complaints of this nature.
Each individual in the messages requested by the Committee experienced behaviour from Alex Salmond that was unacceptable and which either Police Scotland or the Crown Office considered potentially criminal.
A group chat, about which there has been much speculation, was simply a support group for women who had already shared their experiences with the Police. The selective quoting of messages by people with whom they should not have been shared has led to increasing pressure on the women involved.
These messages, had they been published, would show clearly that there was no conspiracy between women, but bonds of friendship and support.
There is no manual as to what happens to you when you speak to the Police and they inform you that the actions you describe could be criminal. There’s no handbook that sets out whether or how you’ll be protected, what your rights are and what happens to your identity. There’s no immediate offer of support from a third party, someone who can help guide you through the process. That simply isn’t there. So you turn to your friends and colleagues for support.
And when the person you have been asked by Police Scotland to give evidence about is someone who was and is a hugely powerful figure, there is comfort in knowing that you are not the only one going through that experience, you find support in solidarity.
It is impossible to counter claims of conspiracy by those who selectively choose messages, without any context. These are private and personal communications which should not need to be in the public domain to prove a theory false or for complainers to be believed.
That we work in politics should not prevent us from speaking honestly and truthfully to the Police or to each other, in fact it should compel us to do so, to live up to the values we believe in.
We firmly believe that the Committee’s determination to gain sight of and publish these personal messages is yet another example of the behaviour that led Rape Crisis Scotland to write on behalf of the two complainers in the government investigation into Mr Salmond that;
“They are deeply disappointed that the Committee continues to be insensitive to the fact that they are real people on the other side of this, and they are distressed that their painful personal experiences are being exploited for political purposes through the Committee’s inquiry."
Publication and discussion of private messages is a complete invasion of privacy and has already led to further distress, not only to us, but also to the other women involved in complaints against Mr Salmond, and those we turned to for support.
The bullying and intimidation of complainers through use of their private and personal communications must end now.
Forensic Medical Examination Statement and Social Media Break
We are delighted that the Forensic Medical Services Bill has passed its third and final stage.
For many years we have been making the case for improved responses to survivors of rape and sexual assault, forensic and otherwise. Survivors deserve to be treated with compassion and dignity without exception and should be able to expect consistent communication.
Introducing self-referral in Scotland is a vital step towards ensuring survivors have as much control over their own experience as possible. No-one should ever be pressured or coerced into reporting sexual violence and having the ability to capture and safely store potential evidence without having to commit to reporting is necessary and important.
We are proud to have worked alongside the Survivor Reference Group in shaping this Bill and we are grateful to them for their work. Members give their time because they want organisations and institutions to learn from their experiences. They rightly want make sure that other survivors are able to expect compassion and best practice from the institutions that are supposed to protect all of us.
We share and echo the concerns voiced by multiple MSPs and individuals about the lack of female doctors; we must be clear that the amendment accepted will not change this. The right to request a female examiner is all very well, but until there are enough female examiners available across Scotland the ability to access one is a matter of location and chance. This is not good enough; work to prioritise recruitment of female examiners has to be an urgent priority.
In recent days we have been subject to an onslaught of abuse on social media, that has been very, very difficult. There is a clear difference between criticism of a policy position and the sort of intimidation, harassment and vitriol that we have been subject to. To protect staff wellbeing we will be taking a break from social media until further notice.
If you are looking for support, our helpline is open as normal from 6pm - midnight every night:
Call: 08088 01 03 02
Email: support@rapecrisisscotland.org.uk
Text: 07537 410 027
Faculty of Advocate Investigation: 'boys club' accused of closing ranks to protect their own
Timeline:
- March 29th 2020: Video released of Jackson seen to be discussing case details, calling Alex Salmond a ‘bully’ and a ‘sex pest’ and naming complainers in high profile sexual offences trial. Jackson is recorded stating that “all I need to do is put a smell on her” in relation to one of the complainers.
- March 30th 2020: Jackson refers himself to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) following the publication of the footage
- April 2nd 2020: Rape Crisis Scotland make complaint on behalf of complainers to the SLCC
- April 3rd 2020: Jackson announces that he will resign as Dean of the Faculty with effect from the 30thJune, and earlier if the SLCC refers the complaint about him to the Faculty
- August 10th 2020: SLCC (after four months) assess that there was sufficient merit to the complaint for it to be referred for investigation by the Faculty of Advocates on two of the three complaints
- August 20th 2020 Rape Crisis Scotland write to SLCC to express disappointment at length of time taken to reach decision and decision not to uphold assertion that Jackson saying “all I need to do is put a smell on her” undermines confidence in the Faculty of Advocates
- September 2nd 2020: Faculty confirms correspondence from SLCC received and gives Rape Crisis Scotland 14 days to submit additional material
- September 4th 2020: Faculty communicate that Jackson has requested an extension, new deadline of 2nd October 2020
- September 25th 2020: Faculty communicate Jackson has requested another extension, new deadline of 30th October 2020.
- October 16th 2020: Faculty communicate Jackson’s request for extension, new deadline of 27th November 2020.
- 24th November 2020: Faculty communicate Jackson has requested yet another extension, deadline new deadline 18th December 2020.
Sandy Brindley, Chief Executive of Rape Crisis Scotland said:
“It’s hard to see this latest move by the Faculty as anything other than a boy’s club closing ranks to protect one of their own. Gordon Jackson’s behaviour in the aftermath of the Salmond trial was completely inappropriate and unprofessional. At the time he made these comments, he was the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates. It is unacceptable that over 8 months later he has still faced absolutely no sanction for recklessly and publicly naming two complainers, whose anonymity was protected by a court order, and talking about details of the case on public transport.
Gordon Jackson is a powerful public figure, he is a QC, the former Dean of the Faculty of Advocates and has a legal team representing him in this process. The ten women from the case have no legal representation, with representations being made by Rape Crisis Scotland. This feels like an imbalance that Jackson is using to his advantage to delay the process.
The Faculty of Advocates have a huge role to play in upholding law in Scotland but they are not above it. Like all of us, Jackson must be held accountable for his actions. You’d be forgiven for thinking that Jackson is being allowed to pull the strings in his own investigation, fobbing it off until he is able to retire in peace. This is unacceptable, and in our view undermines public confidence in the Faculty of Advocates."
Read: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/rape-crisis-charity-accuses-alex-23112800
Legal Opinion: Scottish Government's response to the prosecution of serious sexual crime in times of Covid-19 ‘could be unlawful’
Rape Crisis Scotland has today released a legal opinion showing the Scottish Government’s response to the prosecution of serious sexual crime in times of Covid-19 ‘could be unlawful’.
The opinion – by both junior and senior counsel – points to the impact of court closures resulting from Covid-19 on survivors of serious sexual crime and draws conclusions that leave the Scottish Government open to legal challenge. The opinion finds an objective basis for serious sexual crimes being treated differently from other types of crime, particularly during the current pandemic, leading to calls for judge led trials (trials before a panel of judges with written reasons) for sexual crime to be put back on the table.
From the outset Rape Crisis Scotland raised significant concerns about the impact of the significant backlog caused by Covid-19 related court closures on the health and wellbeing of survivors of sexual crimes. This is supported by findings from recent research on rape survivors’ ‘Justice Journeys’ undertaken by Prof Michele Burman Dr Oona Brooks–Hay and Dr Lisa Bradley from the Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research (SCCJR) which evidences the significant and harmful toll that uncertainty and delays have had on the mental health of survivors.
In light of this legal opinion Rape Crisis Scotland has reiterated calls for the Scottish Government to legislate for judge led trials to be used in the short term to alleviate the untenable backlog. Not doing so – they say – would be ignoring the rights of victims and that would be unacceptable.
Summary of conclusions:
(1) The Government has a positive obligation under Articles 3 and 8 ECHR to protect people from violence and interferences with their physical and moral integrity. The Government’s failure adequately to address the delay in the prosecution of serious sexual crime resulting from COVID-19 may amount to a failure to fulfil its positive obligations under Articles 3, 8 and 13.
(2) The vast majority of gender-based violence is directed against women. Violence against women is a form of discrimination. The delay in the prosecution of serious sexual crime resulting from COVID-19 will have a disproportionate impact on victims of serious sexual crime. The Government’s failure adequately to address the delay may amount to indirect discrimination under Article 14 ECHR.
(3) In terms of Article 18 of the Victims Directive the Government has an obligation to protect victims of crime from secondary and repeat victimisation. The delay in the prosecution of serious sexual crime resulting from COVID-19 increases the likelihood of secondary and repeat victimisation. The Government’s failure adequately to address the delay may amount to a breach of the Victims Directive.
(4) In terms of section 149 of the 2010 Act the Government is subject to the public sector equality duty. The Government was initially in favour of judge-only trials. As introduced, the Coronavirus (Scotland) Bill contained provision for judge-only trials. In removing that provision and subsequently reversing its policy on judge-only trials without having due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination (i.e. the disproportionate impact of the delay on victims of serious sexual crime) and advance equality of the sexes, the Government may have breached the public sector equality duty. The decision to remove judge-only trials as an option would be amenable to judicial review. As the duty under the 2010 Act is a continuing one, the Government remains under an obligation to review and reconsider the likely impact of delay on victims of gender-based violence.
(5) Sexual crime is different from other forms of crime. There is an objective basis for treating it differently from other types of crime, particularly during the current pandemic. We understand that RCS favours the introduction – even if it is only temporary – of trials before a judge sitting alone (or before a panel of judges) in cases of serious sexual crime.
Sandy Brindley, Chief Executive of Rape Crisis Scotland said:
“For lots of survivors across Scotland this is a situation that feels like it’s at breaking point. The issue of delays isn’t a new one, it existed before Covid-19, but the impact of court closures means that taking a gentle, cautious approach and tinkering at the edges is not an option. We are talking about asking victim-survivors of rape and sexual abuse to put their lives on hold for years for a slim hope of justice – that’s not a fair or reasonable thing to ask of anyone.
“We need bold leadership and action from a Government in line with their commitment to ending gender-based violence and upholding human rights. It should not take a legal challenge for the government to recognise the harm being caused to people who have reported rape serious sexual assault by the current situation.”
## ENDS ##
Notes to Editors:
The summary of the legal opinion can be found here.
The SCCJJR research referenced can be found here.
For further comment, queries or interviews please email sandy.brindley@rapecrisisscotland.org.uk
Rape Crisis Scotland calls for radical changes to sexual offence trials
In an extraordinary judgment today, Lord Carloway, the Lord Justice General, Scotland’s most senior judge has vehemently condemned the manner in which all of the lawyers, prosecution, defence and presiding Judge, treated a victim of serious sexual crime during the trial of her assailant, Gavin MacDonald, who was thirty years her senior. The judge explained that if the circumstances of this case were to be repeated the, “situation in sexual offences trials would be unsustainable”.
Sitting with Lord Pentland and Lord Turnbull, Lord Carloway refused Mr MacDonald’s appeal and delivered the opinion of the court in which he strongly criticised the way the young woman was treated, stating that her cross examination was insulting, irrelevant, repetitive and distressing. In an excoriating judgment he stated the,
“trial was conducted in a manner which flew in the face of basic rules of evidence and procedure, not only the rape shield provisions but also the common law. It ignored a number of principles which have been laid down and emphasised in several recent decisions of this court. If justice is to prevail in the prosecution of sexual offences, it is imperative that those representing parties abide by these basic rules.”
RSS
