| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.41 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay): We should examine the Bill in the light of Labour's election promises, especially those on women, with which I appreciate several hon. Members have dealt in detail. In the run-up to the election, the Labour party made a great deal of its promises to women to improve their position when they are brought to court in sexual offence cases.
At the Labour party's October conference, the Home Secretary said:
I am also concerned about the report of the statement by the Labour party's women's unit, which is headed by Baroness Jay, and to which the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) referred. It implies that a woman's behaviour during sexual activity should be used as a means of undermining her case that she did not give her consent. Whether she screams and kicks in her normal sexual activity is deemed in the report to be a possible relevant cause of a man declaring that he honestly believed that she was consenting. I raised in an intervention the point that one can interpret that the other way around: if a woman remains passive during an attack in order to protect herself, she could equally be accused of giving consent.
In many countries, consideration of a woman's sexual history in such cases--and of a man's in cases of gay rape--is banned. I raised the matter with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), and he rightly put me in my place by stating that I was referring to matters relating to defendants, not witnesses. I am sure that it does not need to be said, after everything that has been said in the House today, that the woman who is the victim, or the plaintiff, or as my right hon. and learned Friend referred to her, the witness, is often treated almost as if she was the defendant, such is the venom of the cross-examination that she has to undergo.
Although I understand that lawyers like to see things in a clear, objective, cut-and-dried fashion, a large element of humanity must be considered in the conduct of proceedings in our courts. There must be a limitation on the prurience that such cases attract. The Government's report "Speaking up for Justice" said that judges allowed up to 75 per cent. of defence applications to cross- question the victim on her sexual history in ways that seemed
We still live in a country in which the long history of the treatment of woman lingers on. A woman's freedom to engage in sexual activity is always considered to be more limited than that of a men. That hangover is the reason why women's sexual history becomes such a potent part of rape trials. The same applies to some extent in cases of child abuse. The prurient element is often very detrimental to the victim.
I am sure that there are people here today who are barristers--not least my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham--who could explain why sexual abuse cannot be considered as grievous bodily harm. To do so would remove a great deal of the emotive aspect. A woman who is raped is physically and, if you like, mentally abused, but she is being abused. If we leave the sexual element out, we might consider such cases in a more objective way. The same applies to what is normally called domestic violence, which is simply grievous bodily harm. However, because it is domestic, there is always a suggestion that the woman somehow connived at the treatment that she received. I go back to the point that that is a big flaw in the remarks attributed to the Labour party's women's unit. I urge the women on the Government Benches to take that up. I believe that they should correct the attitude that is inherent in those remarks. I believe that it is inherent generally in the way in which we consider such matters.
The courts have an unhappy history of treatment of women in rape cases. As we have already said, many women do not go to court because they know how women are treated in such cases. A great deal of that stems from a widespread hangover of sexist attitudes in our society. It is good to remember that women were considered almost as chattels until recent times. They had almost no rights in marriage and certainly no property rights. Sexist attitudes still prevail.
If hon. Members think that it is just me saying that, I urge any of them who have five minutes to spare to take a look at the book by Jill Seward, the victim in the Ealing vicarage rape case. Three males were involved, two of whom abused her in what even the judge referred to as a foul and disgusting way. They were given five-year sentences. A little bit was added on because they were there to commit a burglary. Nevertheless, one of those men was out after three years and the other served less than his five-year sentence. That is not uncommon. Many soft sentences are handed down by geriatric judges in our courts, often in cases that involve women and their sexual lives. Our courts are besmirched as a result of that and they need to do something about it. The Bill must deal with sentencing and the length of sentences.
After the vicarage rape case, Lord Lane, who was then the Lord Chief Justice, said that the sentences had been too lenient. That is not surprising, because the third man in that case, who did not take part in the rapes, but was involved only in the burglary, got 14 years. That contrast shows that the courts make dreadful mistakes, however learned the individuals who serve the courts may be and despite their elevation to the status of judges. Those mistakes are an abuse of the people who appear before the courts.
We listen to such learned gentlemen who usually occupy the Front Benches of this Chamber when it comes to legal matters; they are usually appointed Home Secretary or shadow Home Secretary. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) is an honourable exception.
Mr. Hogg:
Or the shadow Home Secretary--what about my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)?
Mrs. Gorman:
There are exceptions. However, the point is that such learned gentlemen do not always get it right; they lecture us in this place and sometimes attempt to intimidate us.
I should like the Bill to deal with the power of sentencing. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that it is possible for the Director of Public Prosecutions to lay down consistent penal policy and sentencing that would be reflected in courts throughout the country. Judges would have strong guidelines on the policy in such cases.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South):
I want to make one small point before the hon. Lady goes completely off track and reduces the good points that she made earlier. The Director of Public Prosecutions has no power at any time to direct the level of sentencing. That is for the Lord Chief Justice in the Court of Appeal.
Mrs. Gorman:
If I may say so, that is a typical legal intervention and an attempt to humiliate the witness, plaintiff, or victim--as I consider myself to be. [Interruption.] I am now informed by the more gentle counsels of my colleagues that I should have been talking about the Court of Appeal.
However, as a lay person, I make the point that sentences are much too varied and, in the majority of rape cases, they are far too lenient. I hope that the Committee will deal with the issue of the sentences that are handed down by the courts.
It is about time that we had more women judges, who could influence the law. That is a tangential point and I realise that it is not specifically covered in the Bill, but as this is a Second Reading debate and I can say what I like, I shall say it again. I believe that that point is reflected in the general attitude to women in our courts. I make no excuses for putting the women's perspective because our courts are far too heavily dominated by men. There are sensitive issues about people's personal behaviour, their right to their personal behaviour and the abuses that they often sustain because they are less informed or less articulate and more easily humiliated. We need the advice of a woman in deciding on the laws of our country as they apply in such cases.
When the Bill reaches Committee, I hope that the Government will reconsider clauses 40 to 42 and address the concerns that have been brought to my attention by a group of more than 200 organisations, headed by Women Against Rape, and including Victim Support and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Those organisations have stated that they feel "let down" by the Bill. I am sure that Ministers feel suitably chastised and humiliated by the fact that all those worthy bodies feel that the Bill is not up to the mark, and that they will take the opportunity in Committee to do something to meet those concerns.
"All too often, the prospect of intrusive and unnecessary cross-examination in court is too much for many women."
I hope that, in Committee, that will cause him to pay particular attention to clauses 40 and 41, which leave very large loopholes through which protection can be abused. Clever defence lawyers will find many ways aroundthe legislation, allowing continued humiliation and discrediting of victims of sexual crimes. If the Government fail to tighten up the Bill in that respect, they will have failed to honour the promises that they made in the run-up to the election.
"to go far beyond that demanded in the interests of relevance and . . . fairness to the defendant."
That is the same as saying that the victim, witness or plaintiff--I prefer to use that word because it is slightly less emotive--is treated unfairly. She is the complainant, but she is treated as if she was the defendant. The courts and the legal profession have to take that into account.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |