| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead): I am a bit concerned about my right hon. Friend's assumption that rape cases are likely to have a lower success rate than other cases. He seemed to assume that that was reasonable. Surely that cannot be so, because the standard of evidence that the Crown Prosecution Service asks for is already extremely high before such cases even get to court. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider his view that they are likely to have a lower success rate.
Mr. Straw: What I said was not an opinion--it was merely a statement of fact. With great respect to my hon. Friend, there is a difference. Even in my case, and holding the office that I do, although I would like it if everything that I said happened to be true simply by virtue of the fact that I said it, I find that that is not necessarily so.
The point that I was trying to make is that, when we are dealing with the facts about sexual offences, especially rape allegations, it is important to distinguish between what has been called stranger rape and what has been called acquaintance rape. With stranger rape, when typically there has been a violent and sudden attack on a woman not know to the assailant, the issue is rarely whether a rape has taken place; the evidence is incontrovertible. The issue is almost always the identity of the assailant.
In acquaintance rape, the reverse is the case. The identity of the alleged assailant is by definition known. The issue, which is always complicated, because we must remain aware that we are dealing with a justice system, is almost always whether a rape actually took place--in other words, whether there was consent to sexual intercourse.
That raises some complicated questions and, given the complexity of the issues, it is a simple fact that, with the best will in the world, a higher proportion of such cases are likely to end in acquittal than other cases that may be more straightforward. That is not a matter of opinion; I am merely stating some facts.
However, we want to ensure that, when a rape has taken place, whether it was an acquaintance rape or a stranger rape--and we should deal in particular with the issue of acquaintance rape--there is a greater likelihood of the case being reported to the police and brought to court and, where the charge is just, ending in a conviction.
Ms Julia Drown (South Swindon):
Would not the CPS use the same criteria in either case, which should mean the same success rate whether the case that reached court was an acquaintance rape or any other kind of rape? The Bill is concerned with cases that reach the court, and they should be considered in exactly the same way, whichever type of rape is involved.
Mr. Straw:
My hon. Friend is right. The basic principles that Crown prosecutors have to follow are the same for any offence. I shall deal with the detail later. We seek to secure a situation in which, because it should be easier to pursue a case to court and then, where it is just, to obtain a conviction, the CPS will no longer have to make a rational judgment that--because of the way in which a case may be derailed by what many would regard as irrelevant, but aggressive, cross-examination about a woman's previous sexual history--that case is not likely to lead to a conviction, and may even be withdrawn from the jury at the end of the prosecution case.
Part I builds on the principles of restorative justice that we set out in the White Paper "No More Excuses", published in November 1997. Those principles mean ensuring that young offenders take responsibility for their actions, make reparation to their victims, and can be reintegrated into the law-abiding community. In the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, we used those principles to reform the youth justice system overall. We created a final warning scheme for young offenders who are cautioned by the police, and a new sentence of a reparation order. Both schemes allow for imaginative interventions to ensure that young people confront the impact that their crimes have had on their victims and make reparation.
Although it is early days yet, the indications--from the experience of the youth offending teams operating in the pilot areas--are that the final warnings are a success. Instead of young offenders getting a warning with a wag of a finger, or a conditional discharge after which the offenders walk from court with no other intervention in their lives, youth offending teams are intervening in the lives of young offenders and their parents to try to get them to face up to what they have done.
We have built on those principles in designing the new referral orders. All offenders who are referred will have to make some kind of reparation, whether it is meeting the victim face to face, writing a letter of apology, or painting out graffiti to make good damage to the community.
I am glad to see a Scottish Member present in the Chamber. We have drawn on the experience of New Zealand and of the Scottish children's panels, which I have visited, and it is striking how much higher public confidence is in the youth justice arrangements in Scotland than in those in England and Wales. I remember writing to colleagues in the parliamentary Labour party before the election asking whether they had comments on the youth
justice systems in England, Wales and Scotland and to feed back any information that they had. Overwhelming concern was obvious among colleagues from England and Wales about the ramshackle nature of the youth justice system, but the Scottish system received considerable support from Scottish colleagues. It is not perfect, as everybody recognises, but, by seeking to engage the youngsters and their parents in an inquisitorial rather than adversarial system, it has much more to recommend it.
The panel will operate outside the confines of the youth court. It will be able to discuss the consequences of young offenders' behaviour with them, their family and other supporters, and thoroughly investigate their circumstances so that action can be taken, wherever possible, to stop re-offending.
One of the major criticisms of the youth justice system that we all have, especially those of us who have visited it, is the dreadful spectacle of the young offender being a bystander to the theatre of the court. I have often sat at the back of a youth court--having had to obtain the court's permission to attend, because the hearings are private, although we are also seeking to change that--and seen young offenders who are, at best, detached and observing the proceedings without any engagement in them. They are talked at or talked through, but never talked to. At worst, the young offenders have an insolent attitude to what is taking place and are wholly alienated from it. We are trying to change that situation. We are trying to involve young offenders fully in panel meetings; and to oblige them to face up to what they have done and sign up to a programme of future action.
That approach is no easy alternative. Referral to the panel will be a court sentence, and the local youth offender team will be closely monitoring young offenders' compliance with the programme. Non-compliance will see them back in court for re-sentencing and, at that point, the court will have available all the sentences that are currently available. For many young offenders, the panel meetings will be an early opportunity to turn their lives around. That opportunity must be available to all young people who are ready to accept that they have done wrong and ready to make changes. That is why we want referral to youth offender panels to be the standard way to deal with first-time offenders who plead guilty. The Scottish arrangement is that an issue of fact--which happens infrequently--goes before the sheriff, but, if offenders plead guilty, they go straight to a youth panel. The new system is not a direct replication of that, but will build on the Scottish experience for England and Wales.
In other words, referral should be mandatory unless the court thinks that custody or an absolute discharge is more appropriate. That is why we firmly believe that offenders who have already started to take responsibility for their actions by pleading guilty would benefit most from the new approach. Therefore, we shall seek to reverse amendments made in the other place which made referral discretionary rather than mandatory for the target group of young offenders.
Where there is a multiple set of charges and a plea of guilty to one or more of the offences but not guilty to others, it will be open to the court, under the Bill as originally printed, to exercise its discretion on whether to make a referral to the youth offender panel.
I have referred to the experience in Thames Valley. With the consent of the parties, I had the privilege of witnessing a restorative justice arrangement. It was
impressive and far more thorough in engaging the young offenders and their parents than anything that I have seen in the youth court.
Before the panel were two offenders who had jointly taken part in thieving from a changing room. The victim who ran the organisation was present. Although she was not directly victimised, in practice she was the victim and had been under suspicion herself, entirely wrongly, for what had taken place. The mother of one boy and the father of the other were also there.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |