| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Llwyd: The Lord Chief Justice has pronounced on the issue and the jury is out. I believe that there is some consensus. Judges must take heed of what the Lord Chief Justice has said and must observe every aspect of the guidelines very carefully. If they do, there will be no problem of witnesses being intimidated, because the cross-examination will be stopped. That provides equal protection for witnesses and the rights of the defendant.
Ms Hughes: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I know that he has considerable experience. However, his view is predicated on the assumption that judges will implement what the Lord Chief Justice has said in the way that is envisaged. Judges already have limited provisions to enable children to give evidence more effectively, but they have not been used in child sexual abuse cases to the extent that the cases have demanded. It is legitimate to raise questions about the perspectives that prevail in courtrooms among lawyers and judges, and to consider to what extent we can be assured that the necessary actions will be taken without legislation.
Mr. Leigh: I know that I am not going to convince the hon. Lady, because she thinks that there should be a blanket denial of the right of the accused to cross-examine in a rape case, but does she think that there may be exceptional circumstances in which, by leave of the court--and only by leave of the court--the accused should be allowed to cross-examine the complainant? For example, if she is an ex-girlfriend, should he not be entitled to ask her why, in his view, she is telling lies?
Ms Hughes: I cannot envisage such circumstances, so I guess that the hon. Gentleman is right to say that I have a different opinion from his on the general principle.
In the criminal justice system, those parts of the process of investigating and protecting children that have to do with prosecution have failed the victims of child sexual abuse and their families. The incidence and prevalence of the offence is much greater than the public appreciate. That is largely because only a small number of such cases reach court and only a small number of those that reach court result in a successful prosecution.
We have made considerable progress in the processes of protecting children when an allegation has been made, and in the multi-disciplinary process of investigation. However, we have not made similar progress in the criminal justice system--in how it decides whether to prosecute such cases, and in how those prosecutions are executed.
The advisory committee on video-recorded evidence, which produced the Piggott report in 1989, not only made a raft of recommendations--which have largely been incorporated into the Bill--on dealing with child witnesses, but identified one of the main reasons for the lack of progress in the criminal justice system. The committee believed that lawyers' and judges' perception of, and attitude towards, children's evidence was such that that evidence was not taken sufficiently seriously, and that legal processes have been very slow in adapting to the specific needs of children and of children who have been violated.
In a previous professional capacity, I undertook some research with a small team investigating the nature and incidence across the country of ritual and organised child sexual abuse. As part of the research, we had to examine police and social service records of their investigations of about 20,000 cases of alleged child sexual abuse, which entailed reading the transcripts of children's statements. It was a harrowing experience for my research team. However, even more harrowing was our realisation, after following up those cases, that fewer than 5 per cent. of the cases ended up in court, and that a very tiny percentage of them resulted in a successful prosecution.
I appreciate the views of experienced lawyers who express in the Chamber their concerns for defendants. However, I feel very strongly that, as parliamentarians, we must deal with a wider issue of justice that becomes acutely obvious in cases of child sexual abuse. The figures themselves show that our criminal justice system is allowing most alleged perpetrators to walk free and abuse again. We, as parliamentarians, must therefore ask ourselves whether the criminal justice system is serving the interests of children and of justice. I argue very strongly that, on the basis of the evidence in child sexual abuse cases, the answer is clearly no.
I therefore believe that, as responsible parliamentarians, we have a duty to change the system, while accepting the difficult balances that have to be struck. I accept that it is very easy to make an allegation of a sexual offence, and that it is very important that a defendant should be able to try to defend himself or, occasionally, herself. Equally, we have to recognise that, so far, the balance in cases of child sexual abuse has been tipped strongly in favour of the defendant, and insufficiently in favour of protecting children by the successful prosecution of offenders.
The nature of the issue is evidenced also by the very large number of allegations of child sexual abuse that have been fully investigated--they are not frivolous--and have resulted in prosecutions, but that have been discontinued in court. Furthermore--going back a stage--a high proportion of cases never even reached court, as Crown Prosecution Service solicitors decided that, evidentially, a case would not stand up.
The issue brings us to the heart of some of the Bill's provisions. We have to find ways of enabling children to tell their story to a court in a way that will increase the chances of--on my definition--a fair trial. A trial has patently been unfair if a child cannot provide to the court the fullest and most detailed evidence that he or she is able to give within his or her limitations. I therefore very strongly support the Bill's provision of special measures
and eligibility criteria, which will be an essential and fundamental step forward if we really are going to tackle the issue.
It is not only a question of justice for individual children, important though that is. As a society, if we are going to take more seriously the larger issue of child sexual abuse, not only do we have to be effective in protecting children and investigating allegations, but the prosecution process has to be more effective as part of the armoury against such abuse as a social problem.
Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet):
I apologise to the House for the fact that other parliamentary business kept me out of the Chamber for part of the debate, although I have heard much of it.
I wish to refer to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on youth offender panels. If we are going down that road, it is extraordinary that the conditions of panels will apply only to first-time offenders. As with any law, it will not be retrospective. However, there will be a cut-off point, so that anyone who may have offended in a minor way before the introduction of the legislation will, effectively, fall outside the net.
I am working on the fond assumption that that will not be by any means a licence for the Bench to release back into the community, against the public interest, young people who more properly ought to be dealt with more severely because of the severity of their crimes. Clearly, that would not be progress.
If the proposal is a good thing--and I take it that most hon. Members believe that, in theory, it is--it surely should be extended to second and even third-time offenders on appropriate occasions, as determined by the Bench. The thrust of the measure is to try to keepvery young offenders away from a life of almost institutionalised criminality. If that is to work, the Home Secretary and the Minister of State must look again at this matter in Committee.
I wish to refer to the provisions in the Bill that relate to sexual offences. I am concerned that, once again, the law of unintended consequences may cut in if we are not careful. I listened with great interest and respect to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who, as a distinguished lawyer, knows much more about these issues than I do. My experience is quite simply as a constituency Member of Parliament and my offering is anecdotal rather than legal and experienced, as my right hon. and learned Friend's was.
I wish to give two examples to illustrate my point of view. The first relates directly to my family. When my daughter was small, her aunt--who was then also in her teens--was attacked by two men on holiday at night while
leaving a club. She was jumped from behind, strangled, raped and left for dead. Miraculously, she recovered, and I saw her two days after the attack. The bruises on her neck were still vivid, and every single blood vessel in both eyes had burst; her eyes were bright red, as a result of the ferocity of the attack. No one who has experienced that kind of aftermath--and the internal trauma that goes with it--can possibly believe anything other than that rape is a vile crime.
However, one of my first duties as a Member of Parliament following my election in 1983 was to see, at their request, the young wife and mother-in-law of a young man who was detained in Canterbury prison, having been convicted of a rape. They both pleaded his innocence. One might have thought that a mother-in-law would feel quite strongly about a son-in-law who had acknowledged that he had gone out to a nightclub and made love to a woman who was not his wife.
Both ladies convinced me that I should go and see my constituent in Canterbury prison. It was the very first time I had been inside a prison. It perfectly likely that most Members of Parliament, when first elected, will not have had occasion to go into a prison. It is a fairly daunting experience and not one that I would want to repeat, except to visit constituents.
I interviewed my constituent in prison for about an hour and a half and came away with a feeling of grave disquiet. On my way out, the warden said, "Can you do anything for him, Sir?" I asked why and he said, "Because he shouldn't be in here. He is not guilty." Prison wardens are not given to believing that all their charges are innocent.
Prisoners take a fairly robust view of those who are guilty of sexual crimes, especially against women and children, which they find offensive, as we all do. My constituent had never been on rule 43 for his own protection, because everybody in the prison believed that he was innocent. I took up the case and discovered that not only the warden and I but the probation officer were convinced that it was a genuine and serious wrongful conviction. That was 15 years ago, and I am still fighting the case.
It is virtually impossible to get the conviction reversed. The case is currently before the review committee, which is deeply reluctant to reintervene because, frankly, most people recognise that there is very little mileage in being dubbed a defender of rapists. That does not alter the fact that a significant number of people who have been closely involved with the case and have examined the forensic evidence, or lack of it, and seen the clothing that was indubitably tampered with after the forensic scientists had examined it, believe that the man is innocent.
Happily, my constituent's wife stood by him--he now has two fine children and is trying desperately to rebuild his life--but the conviction has stuck with him. Why am I saying all this to the House? Because the demure young lady who appeared in court was not quite the same young lady whom others had seen on the streets of my constituency, enjoying herself in a variety of ways at a variety of times of the day and night. I put it no higher than that. To say that such a person's sexual history could not or should not be allowed as evidence in any future case would, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, prejudice the course of justice.
I am deeply concerned that there is an atmosphere abroad that militates against the defendant and virtually says that the moment a man is in the dock accused of rape he is guilty, and the complainant is automatically a victim. In many vile cases that is so, but not in every case. Members of the Standing Committee should satisfy themselves and the House that, in doing what, in broad terms, we all want done, we are not damaging what my right hon. and learned Friend rightly described as the absolute duty of the court to ensure that the defendant gets a fair trial.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |