News

A letter to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service
We write to express our significant concern with respect to your letter 
dated 8th of March outlining the shift in approach of the Crown Office 
in dealing with reluctant complainers in rape cases, effective from 
today, and ask that you urgently reconsider this change to policy.
We share the knowledge that rape is an awful crime that can leave a 
lasting and profound impact on those who experience this violence. It is
 no secret that the concept of justice is one that is frequently far 
removed from the reality of survivors of sexual violence in Scotland 
today. I know you are also aware of the many barriers that stand in the 
way for those who pursue justice and even though considerable work has 
been done to address and remove these obstacles there remains a stubborn
 gap between those who experience sexual violence and their ability to 
access justice and we are clear that there is much more to do.
We consider the approach outlined in your aforementioned letter that 
will compel rape complainers to give evidence or risk a warrant being 
issued for her arrest to be a step backwards, and one that could have 
significant, lasting negative implications. We are not aware that any 
Equality Impact Assessment has been undertaken which means many of the 
potential impacts are unknown, however we have outlined our concerns 
below.
One of the main factors in complainer withdrawal in rape cases is the 
criminal justice process itself.  In general, rape complainers report 
what has happened to them to the police with every intention of 
continuing through the criminal justice process.  It is the process 
itself which can lead them to the point of feeling like they cannot cope
 with it anymore. This particularly relates to the lengthy delays in 
cases coming to court, the frequent changes in court dates, the changes 
in location of where the case will be heard and a lack of meaningful 
communication about what is happening.  It seems to us perverse that 
someone who has been through an extremely traumatic experience and 
demonstrates the courage and resilience to report this experience to the
 police is then faced with the prospect of having a warrant issued for 
her arrest because she has been treated so badly by the very system that
 is supposed to protect her.
We are concerned that this policy violates the human rights of rape 
survivors. Rape complainers have described the court process as being 
‘worse than being raped’. Their perception is that the Crown does not 
intervene to protect their rights during cross examination.  We consider
 that compelling a rape complainer to undergo the experience of giving 
evidence and being cross examined in a rape case, against their wishes 
and where there is no intimidation or other outside factors involved in 
preventing them from giving evidence, is in contravention of both 
Article 3 (freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 8 
(respect for private family life) of the rights contented in the Human 
Rights Act. It is inconceivable to us that, having been through so much,
 the justice process would knowingly cause further harm to rape 
survivors.
This policy will mean that more rape complainers will falsely retract their statements. We are 
seriously concerned that this change to policy will lead more people to 
say that they made up their report.  As you are aware rape complainers 
being charged - or being threatened with being charged - following a 
report of rape is a longstanding concern of ours. What can happen is 
that a rape complainer wishes to withdraw from the justice process – at 
times because they feel they haven’t been believed, or because they 
decide they can’t face going through with it – and thinks that the only 
way they can do this is to say they made it up or that they consented.  
At the moment, we can reassure complainers that they do not need to say 
they made it up because the Crown will not prosecute if they are 
absolutely sure they don’t want or feel able to proceed.  This 
reassurance is critical and under this new policy it will no longer be 
possible.
This will not gain best evidence from rape complainers and risks 
re-traumatising victims. There are multiple difficulties in obtaining 
best evidence from rape complainers in a justice system that can often 
be hostile to victim-survivors of violence, compelling them to give 
evidence will only make this worse. The threat of a warrant being out 
for her arrest will only cause significantly more anxiety and distress. 
Rape complainers frequently tell us that they feel no one is on their 
side during a rape trial. How much more acute would this feeling be in 
these circumstances?
We consider that the prior approach of the Crown to this issue was 
sufficiently nuanced to respond to the complex reasons why a rape 
complainer may withdraw. In our experience, a rape complainer’s desire 
to withdraw was never simply accepted or taken at face value.  You would
 always take steps to ensure that someone wasn’t being intimated into 
not giving evidence, or that their desire to withdraw was being caused 
by lack of support, which could be addressed by ensuring more support 
was put in place.  Our advocacy workers spent a lot of time supporting 
rape complainers to stay engaged with the justice process.  We consider 
that far more could be done to address the reasons why complainers are 
considering withdrawing.
We share the Crown’s concern about ensuring that rapists are prosecuted 
and prevented from causing further harm.  We do not consider, however, 
that this is the right approach to achieve this.  It would be far more 
effective – and less harmful to rape survivors – to address the reasons 
why rape complainers wish to withdraw.  These reasons are well 
documented, for example in the recent Inspectorate of Prosecution’s 
review, but we have yet to see any concerted, coordinated efforts by 
justice agencies to address them.
Confidence of survivors of sexual violence in the justice system is notoriously low; don’t make it worse.
Yours sincerely, 
Sandy Brindley, Chief Executive of Rape Crisis Scotland
Related posts
Why Scotland needs Specialist Sexual Offences Courts
We welcome the Bill’s introduction of a new court but there is more the Scottish Government could do.
Why we support single judge trials
Here’s why we support the pilot scheme and how we think it could help survivors.
Ask an Advocacy Worker
We spoke with two Jo and Dawn from RASASH to find out what Advocacy Workers want survivors to know.
"To all of the women and girls out there, I stand with you" - Reflections From A Survivor
Reflections From A Survivor
International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women '21
This blog is dedicated to the women of the Survivor Reference Group who so powerfully shared their stories in the Scottish Parliament.