File #2490: "2018_Book_RapeTrialsInEnglandAndWales.pdf"
Testo
1|Acknowledgements|5
1|Contents|7
1|List of Tables|8
1|1: Introduction: Setting the Scene|9
2|1.1 Terminology and Defining Rape|11
2|1.2 Why Research Rape Trials in England and Wales?|14
3|1.2.1 Rape Trial Research: Lees’ (1997) Carnal Knowledge|16
2|1.3 A Map of the Book|18
2|1.4 Observing Rape Trials in England and Wales|21
2|References|25
1|2: Rape Trial Practicalities: Delays, Special Measures, and the Survivors’ Experience|29
2|2.1 Delays: Inefficiency and Late Evidence|30
2|2.2 Special Measures: More Delays, Inadequate Facilities, and Intimidation|36
3|2.2.1 Delays Caused by Special Measures|38
3|2.2.2 Inadequate Witness Facilities|40
3|2.2.3 Screens and Intimidation|44
2|2.3 The Public Gallery|47
2|2.4 Why Practicalities Matter: Participation as Justice|50
2|2.5 Chapter Summary|53
2|References|55
1|3: Rape Myths and ‘Rational’ Ideals in Sex Offence Trials|60
2|3.1 Rape Myths: Background and Existing Literature|61
3|3.1.1 Critiquing Rape Myths|65
2|3.2 Trial Observations: Rape Myths and ‘Myth-Busting’|66
2|3.3 Why Do Rape Myths Remain ‘Relevant’ for Juries?|70
3|3.3.1 Challenging ‘Myth-Busters’ in Defence Speeches|70
3|3.3.2 Comparing Survivors to ‘Normal’ and ‘Rational’ Ideals|71
4|Oversimplifying the Context of Rape|73
4|Inconsistencies|76
2|3.4 Gendered Knowing: Dyads and ‘Rationality’|79
2|3.5 Implications for Tackling Rape Myths|83
3|3.5.1 Existing Attempts to Tackle Rape Myths|84
4|Training|84
4|‘Myth-Buster’ Directions to the Jury|86
4|Public Awareness Campaigns|87
3|3.5.2 Potential Future Strategies for Tackling Rape Myths at Trial|88
4|Juror Education or Expert Witnesses|88
4|Specialist Sexual Violence Courts|89
4|Court Observer Schemes|91
2|3.6 Chapter Summary|91
2|References|94
1|4: Sexual History Evidence in Rape Trials|103
2|4.1 The Need for Sexual History Restrictions|104
3|4.1.1 R v A and the Continued Impact of Sexual History Evidence|106
4|R v A|106
4|Continued Reliance on Sexual History Evidence|108
3|4.1.2 R v Evans and Its Potential Legacy|109
2|4.2 Observing Sexual History Evidence in English Trials|111
3|4.2.1 How Was Sexual History Used at Trial?|113
4|Vague or Unclear Purpose|113
4|Similarities with Consensual Sex|114
4|Credibility and Inconsistencies|115
3|4.2.2 Prosecution Inclusion of Sexual History Evidence|120
2|4.3 Making Section 41 More Effective|122
3|4.3.1 Independent Legal Representation for Survivors|124
2|4.4 Chapter Summary|125
2|References|128
1|5: Stereotypes and Adversarial Justice in Rape Trials|132
2|5.1 Gendered Narratives at Trial|133
3|5.1.1 Delusional ‘Damaged Goods’|135
3|5.1.2 Deceitful ‘Scorned Women’|139
3|5.1.3 Erratic, ‘Childlike’, and ‘Capricious Princesses’|141
2|5.2 Intersectionality: Ethnicity, Social Class, and Disability|145
3|5.2.1 Ethnicity and Nationality|146
4|Ethnicity and Nationality in Observations of Rape Trials|149
3|5.2.2 Social Class|154
4|Social Class in Observations of Rape Trials|155
3|5.2.3 Disability|157
4|Disability in Observations of Rape Trials|158
2|5.3 Why Are Stereotypes Used?|161
3|5.3.1 Adversarial and Inquisitorial Justice|161
3|5.3.2 Stereotypes as a Strategy for Winning|164
3|5.3.3 Why Did Stereotypes Disproportionately Affect Survivors?|166
2|5.4 Implications for Policy and Practice|169
3|5.4.1 Judicial Intervention|169
3|5.4.2 Codes of Conduct and Professional Guidance|170
3|5.4.3 Court Observer Scheme|171
3|5.4.4 Pre-recorded Cross-examination|171
2|5.5 Chapter Summary|172
2|References|174
1|6: Cross-examination, Fair Trial, and Survivor Justice in Rape|183
2|6.1 Manipulative Cross-examination|184
3|6.1.1 Court Observations of Manipulation|186
4|Barristers Dictated Relevance and Defined ‘Facts’|189
4|‘Logical’ Reasoning|191
3|6.1.2 Manipulation as a Problem|192
4|Challenges by the Prosecution and Judges|194
4|Pre-trial Witness Preparation?|196
2|6.2 Competing Justice Interests|198
3|6.2.1 Prioritising Efficiency|198
3|6.2.2 Prioritising ‘Truth’-Seeking|201
3|6.2.3 Prioritising Survivors’ Justice Interests|204
3|6.2.4 Prioritising the Accused’s Justice Interests|208
4|Fair Trial and Late Evidence|209
4|Fair Trial or Favourable Trial?|210
4|Narrow Relevance of Prejudicial Evidence|211
4|The Burden of Proof and Benefit of the Doubt|213
4|The Standard of Proof|215
3|6.2.5 Isn’t It Good to Prioritise the Right to a Fair Trial?|219
2|6.3 Implications for Policy and Practice|223
3|6.3.1 Independent Legal Representation for Survivors|223
3|6.3.2 Breach of Human Rights Cases|225
2|6.4 Chapter Summary|227
2|References|231
1|7: Where Next? Conclusions and Considerations for the Future of Rape Justice|238
2|7.1 Summary of Key Findings and Recommendations|240
3|7.1.1 Table of Key Recommendations|245
2|7.2 Widening Survivor Justice|249
3|7.2.1 Restorative Justice?|250
3|7.2.2 Holistic Survivor Justice, Civil Law, and State Compensation|252
4|Reparation: Civil Law and Compensation|254
4|The UK Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme|256
2|7.3 Concluding Thoughts|257
2|References|259
1|References|264
1|Index|291
1|Contents|7
1|List of Tables|8
1|1: Introduction: Setting the Scene|9
2|1.1 Terminology and Defining Rape|11
2|1.2 Why Research Rape Trials in England and Wales?|14
3|1.2.1 Rape Trial Research: Lees’ (1997) Carnal Knowledge|16
2|1.3 A Map of the Book|18
2|1.4 Observing Rape Trials in England and Wales|21
2|References|25
1|2: Rape Trial Practicalities: Delays, Special Measures, and the Survivors’ Experience|29
2|2.1 Delays: Inefficiency and Late Evidence|30
2|2.2 Special Measures: More Delays, Inadequate Facilities, and Intimidation|36
3|2.2.1 Delays Caused by Special Measures|38
3|2.2.2 Inadequate Witness Facilities|40
3|2.2.3 Screens and Intimidation|44
2|2.3 The Public Gallery|47
2|2.4 Why Practicalities Matter: Participation as Justice|50
2|2.5 Chapter Summary|53
2|References|55
1|3: Rape Myths and ‘Rational’ Ideals in Sex Offence Trials|60
2|3.1 Rape Myths: Background and Existing Literature|61
3|3.1.1 Critiquing Rape Myths|65
2|3.2 Trial Observations: Rape Myths and ‘Myth-Busting’|66
2|3.3 Why Do Rape Myths Remain ‘Relevant’ for Juries?|70
3|3.3.1 Challenging ‘Myth-Busters’ in Defence Speeches|70
3|3.3.2 Comparing Survivors to ‘Normal’ and ‘Rational’ Ideals|71
4|Oversimplifying the Context of Rape|73
4|Inconsistencies|76
2|3.4 Gendered Knowing: Dyads and ‘Rationality’|79
2|3.5 Implications for Tackling Rape Myths|83
3|3.5.1 Existing Attempts to Tackle Rape Myths|84
4|Training|84
4|‘Myth-Buster’ Directions to the Jury|86
4|Public Awareness Campaigns|87
3|3.5.2 Potential Future Strategies for Tackling Rape Myths at Trial|88
4|Juror Education or Expert Witnesses|88
4|Specialist Sexual Violence Courts|89
4|Court Observer Schemes|91
2|3.6 Chapter Summary|91
2|References|94
1|4: Sexual History Evidence in Rape Trials|103
2|4.1 The Need for Sexual History Restrictions|104
3|4.1.1 R v A and the Continued Impact of Sexual History Evidence|106
4|R v A|106
4|Continued Reliance on Sexual History Evidence|108
3|4.1.2 R v Evans and Its Potential Legacy|109
2|4.2 Observing Sexual History Evidence in English Trials|111
3|4.2.1 How Was Sexual History Used at Trial?|113
4|Vague or Unclear Purpose|113
4|Similarities with Consensual Sex|114
4|Credibility and Inconsistencies|115
3|4.2.2 Prosecution Inclusion of Sexual History Evidence|120
2|4.3 Making Section 41 More Effective|122
3|4.3.1 Independent Legal Representation for Survivors|124
2|4.4 Chapter Summary|125
2|References|128
1|5: Stereotypes and Adversarial Justice in Rape Trials|132
2|5.1 Gendered Narratives at Trial|133
3|5.1.1 Delusional ‘Damaged Goods’|135
3|5.1.2 Deceitful ‘Scorned Women’|139
3|5.1.3 Erratic, ‘Childlike’, and ‘Capricious Princesses’|141
2|5.2 Intersectionality: Ethnicity, Social Class, and Disability|145
3|5.2.1 Ethnicity and Nationality|146
4|Ethnicity and Nationality in Observations of Rape Trials|149
3|5.2.2 Social Class|154
4|Social Class in Observations of Rape Trials|155
3|5.2.3 Disability|157
4|Disability in Observations of Rape Trials|158
2|5.3 Why Are Stereotypes Used?|161
3|5.3.1 Adversarial and Inquisitorial Justice|161
3|5.3.2 Stereotypes as a Strategy for Winning|164
3|5.3.3 Why Did Stereotypes Disproportionately Affect Survivors?|166
2|5.4 Implications for Policy and Practice|169
3|5.4.1 Judicial Intervention|169
3|5.4.2 Codes of Conduct and Professional Guidance|170
3|5.4.3 Court Observer Scheme|171
3|5.4.4 Pre-recorded Cross-examination|171
2|5.5 Chapter Summary|172
2|References|174
1|6: Cross-examination, Fair Trial, and Survivor Justice in Rape|183
2|6.1 Manipulative Cross-examination|184
3|6.1.1 Court Observations of Manipulation|186
4|Barristers Dictated Relevance and Defined ‘Facts’|189
4|‘Logical’ Reasoning|191
3|6.1.2 Manipulation as a Problem|192
4|Challenges by the Prosecution and Judges|194
4|Pre-trial Witness Preparation?|196
2|6.2 Competing Justice Interests|198
3|6.2.1 Prioritising Efficiency|198
3|6.2.2 Prioritising ‘Truth’-Seeking|201
3|6.2.3 Prioritising Survivors’ Justice Interests|204
3|6.2.4 Prioritising the Accused’s Justice Interests|208
4|Fair Trial and Late Evidence|209
4|Fair Trial or Favourable Trial?|210
4|Narrow Relevance of Prejudicial Evidence|211
4|The Burden of Proof and Benefit of the Doubt|213
4|The Standard of Proof|215
3|6.2.5 Isn’t It Good to Prioritise the Right to a Fair Trial?|219
2|6.3 Implications for Policy and Practice|223
3|6.3.1 Independent Legal Representation for Survivors|223
3|6.3.2 Breach of Human Rights Cases|225
2|6.4 Chapter Summary|227
2|References|231
1|7: Where Next? Conclusions and Considerations for the Future of Rape Justice|238
2|7.1 Summary of Key Findings and Recommendations|240
3|7.1.1 Table of Key Recommendations|245
2|7.2 Widening Survivor Justice|249
3|7.2.1 Restorative Justice?|250
3|7.2.2 Holistic Survivor Justice, Civil Law, and State Compensation|252
4|Reparation: Civil Law and Compensation|254
4|The UK Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme|256
2|7.3 Concluding Thoughts|257
2|References|259
1|References|264
1|Index|291