English and Welsh rape trials have long been recognized as problematic, with research highlighting the prevalence of rape myths, sexual history evidence and manipulative questioning at trial. Despite this extensive literature, little attention has been paid to the more practical elements of rape trials, but the limited evidence that does exist suggests these may significantly impact survivors. This article therefore draws upon 13 months of court observations to examine how seemingly mundane aspects of rape trials can present substantial barriers to participation. It will argue that ‘special measures’ can cause delays, some witness facilities are inadequate and that the public gallery is frequently a site of intimidation. Ultimately, the research highlights simple changes that could increase opportunities for survivor justice; for example ensuring rape survivors use judicial entrances to court.
BaverstockJ (2016) Process evaluation of pre-recorded cross-examination scheme (section 28). London: Ministry of Justice.
2.
BrownJHorvathMKellyL, et al. (2010) Connections and disconnections: Assessing evidence, knowledge and practice in responses to rape. London: Government Equalities Office.
3.
BurtonMEvansRSandersA (2007) Vulnerable and intimidated witnesses and the adversarial process in England and Wales. International Journal of Evidence and Proof11(1): 1–23.
4.
CharlesC (2012) Special measures for vulnerable and intimidated witnesses: Research exploring the decisions and actions taken by prosecutors in a sample of CPS case files. London: Crown Prosecution Service.
5.
Council of Europe (2012) Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
6.
Criminal Justice Act1925. London: HMSO.
7.
CurtisSGeslerWSmithG. (2000) Approaches to sampling and case selection in qualitative research: Examples in the geography of health. Social Science and Medicine50(7–8): 1001–1014.
8.
DalyK (2016) Reconceptualising sexual victimisation and justice. In: VanfraechemIPembertonAMukwiza NdahindaF (eds) Justice for Victims: Perspectives on Rights, Transition and Reconciliation. London: Routledge, 378–395.
9.
DoakJ (2005) Victims’ rights in criminal trials: Prospects for participation. Journal of Law and Society32(2): 294–316.
10.
DoakJ (2008) Victims’ Rights, Human Rights and Criminal Justice: Reconceiving the Role of Third Parties. Oxford: Hart.
11.
EllisonLMunroV (2013) Better the devil you know? ‘Real rape’ stereotypes and the relevance of a previous relationship in (mock) juror deliberations. International Journal of Evidence & Proof17(4): 299–322.
12.
EllisonLMunroV (2014) A special delivery? Exploring the impact of screens, live links and video-recorded evidence on mock juror deliberation in rape trials. Social & Legal Studies23(1): 3–29.
13.
FaircloughN (2010) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language (Second Edition). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
14.
FosterP (2006) Observational research. In: SapsfordRJuppV (eds) Data Collection and Analysis. London: SAGE, 57–92.
15.
GerryA (2009) Victims of crime and the criminal justice system. In: ColvinMCooperJ (eds) Human Rights in the Investigation and Prosecution of Crime. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 447–468.
16.
GibsonBCavadinoPFaulknerD (2002) Introduction to the Criminal Justice Process (Second Edition). Winchester: Waterside Press.
17.
HallM (2009) Victims of Crime: Policy and Practice in Criminal Justice. Cullompton: Willan.
18.
HamlynBPhelpsATurtleJ, et al. (2004) Are special measures working? Evidence from surveys of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. Home Office Research Study 283. London: Home Office.
Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) (2007) Without consent: A report on the joint review of the investigation and prosecution of rape offences. London: HMCPSI.
21.
HermanS (2010) Parallel justice for victims of crime. Washington, DC: National Center for Victims of Crime.
22.
HoT (2015) Televising Hong Kong courts: A study on its legitimacy and practicability. Hong Kong Journal of Legal Studies9: 121–147.
23.
Home Office (2007) Cross-government action plan on sexual violence and abuse. London: Home Office.
24.
HudsonB (2002) Restorative justice and gendered violence: Diversion or effective justice?British Journal of Criminology42(3): 616–634.
25.
KebbellMO’KellyCGilchristE (2007) Rape victims’ experiences of giving evidence in English courts: A survey. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law14(1): 111–119.
26.
KellyLTemkinJGriffithsS (2006) Section 41: An evaluation of new legislation limiting sexual history evidence in rape trials. Home Office Report 20/06. London: Home Office.
KonradiA (2007) Taking the Stand. Wesport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
29.
LambertP (2013) Television Courtroom Broadcasting Effects: The Empirical Research and the Supreme Court Challenge. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
30.
LepofskyD (2009) Cameras in the courtroom – not without my consent. In: BarendtE (ed.) Media Freedom and Contempt of Court. Aldershot: Ashgate.
31.
LondonoP (2007) Positive obligations, criminal procedure and rape cases. European Human Rights Law Review2: 158–171.
32.
LovettJUzelacGHorvathM, et al. (2007) Rape in the 21st century: Old behaviours, new contexts and emerging patterns. ESRC End of Award Report (RES-000–22–1679). Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council.
33.
McDonaldETinsleyY (2011) Use of alternative ways of giving evidence by vulnerable witnesses: Current proposals, issues and challenges. Victoria University of Wellington Legal Research Papers1(1): paper 2/2011.
34.
McGlynnCDownesJWestmarlandN (2017) Seeking justice for survivors of sexual violence: Recognition, voices and consequences. In: KeenanMZinsstagE (eds) Sexual Violence and Restorative Justice: Legal, Social and Therapeutic Dimensions. London: Routledge.
35.
McMillanLThomasM (2009) Police interviews of rape victims: Tensions and contradictions. In: HorvathMBrownJ (eds) Rape: Challenging Contemporary Thinking. Cullompton: Willan, 255–280.
36.
Ministry of Justice (2012) Swift and Sure Justice: The Government’s Plans for Reform of the Criminal Justice System. London: Ministry of Justice.
37.
Ministry of Justice (2015) Code of Practice for Victims of Crime. London: Ministry of Justice.
MulcahyL (2008) The unbearable lightness of being? Shift towards the virtual trial. Journal of Law and Society35(4): 464–489.
40.
Northern Ireland Law Commission (2011) Vulnerable witnesses in civil proceedings. Belfast: Northern Ireland Law Commission.
41.
PayneS (2009) Rape: The Victim Experience Review. London: Home Office.
42.
PowellMWrightR (2010) Professionals’ perceptions of electronically recorded interviews with vulnerable witnesses. Current Issues in Criminal Justice21(2): 205–218.
43.
PowlesS (2009) Evidence. In: ColvinMCooperJ (eds) Human Rights in the Investigation and Prosecution of Crime. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 311–346.
44.
R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256).
45.
RaittF (2010) Independent legal representation for complainants in rape trials. In: McGlynnCMunroV (eds) Rethinking Rape Law: International and Comparative Perspectives. Abingdon: Routledge, 267–280.
46.
RockP (2014) Victims’ rights. In: VanfraechemIPembertonAMukwiza NdahindaF (eds) Justice for Victims: Perspectives on Rights, Transition and Reconciliation. London: Routledge, 11–31.
47.
SandersAJonesI (2007) The victim in court. In: WalklateS (ed.) Handbook of Victims and Victimology. Cullompton: Willan, 282–308.
48.
SmithO (2014) Observing justice: Court responses to rape and sexual assault. PhD Thesis, University of Bath, UK.
49.
SmithO (2018) Rape Trials in England and Wales: Observing Justice and Rethinking Rape Myths. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
50.
SmithOSkinnerT (2012) Observing court responses to victims of rape and sexual assault. Feminist Criminology7(4): 298–326.
51.
SmithOSkinnerT (2017) How rape myths are used and challenged in rape and sexual assault trials. Social & Legal Studies. Epub ahead of print 10 January 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663916680130.
52.
SternV (2010) The Stern review: A report by Baroness Stern CBE of an independent review into how rape complaints are handled by public authorities in England and Wales. London: Home Office.
53.
TaylorNJoudoJ (2005) The impact of pre-recorded video and closed circuit television testimony by adult sexual assault complainants on jury decision-making: An experimental study. Australian Institute of Criminology Research and Public Policy Series (No. 68). Canberra: AIC.
54.
TemkinJKrahéB (2008) Sexual Assault and the Justice Gap: A Question of Attitude. Oxford: Hart.
55.
UN General Assembly (1985) Declaration of basic principles of justice for victims of crime and abuse of power: Resolution (A/RES/40/34). New York: United Nations.
WalkerSLouwD (2003) The court for sexual for sexual offences. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry26(1): 73–85.
58.
WesteraNMcKimmieBKebbellM. (2015) Does the narrative style of video evidence influence judgements about rape complainant testimony?Applied Cognitive Psychology29(5): 637–646.
59.
WestmarlandN (2015) Violence against Women: Criminological Perspectives on Men’s Violence. Abingdon: Routledge.
60.
WheelerB (2015) Spending review: Department-by-department cuts guide. BBC News Online, 24November. Available at: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34790102 (accessed 9 August 2016).
