(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Levitt
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of introducing mandatory jury directions on harmful myths and stereotypes in trials for rape and serious sexual offences; and the potential implications of this for confidence in the criminal justice system among victims and the public.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, I remind the House to exercise our customary caution in refraining from references to ongoing investigations or court processes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, independent judges already can and do give directions concerning rape myths, based on the specifics of each case. In the Courts and Tribunals Bill, we are taking action to stop rape myths being weaponised in court, ensuring that previous allegations of rape or compensation claim information cannot be used unfairly as evidence. We will consider my noble friend Lady Levitt’s amendments to the Bill on this issue, which will be debated next week.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, Russell Brand has just been sentenced to 10 and a half years’ imprisonment. Irrespective of the accuracy of every detail reported from the trial, the reports themselves have caused considerable distress to victims and grave concern among those who support them. I welcome the Prime Minister’s recognition of that harm. Does my noble friend agree that, while most judges follow best practice by directing juries about harmful myths and stereotypes, the fact that some do not means that it is now time for Parliament to require that such a direction be given—before any evidence is heard, not just at the end of the trial, when the damage may have already been done?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My Lords, your Lordships would not expect me to comment on the Russell Brand case but I will say this: I pay tribute to the courage of the victims in seeing this case brought to justice. On the wider question, judges give a tailored direction to assist the jury where they deem it necessary, based on the specifics of each case. The primary source of guidance, as my noble friend knows, is the Judicial College’s Crown Court Compendium, which gives examples where guidance may be necessary. All judges who hear sexual offences in the court receive specific training through RASSO ticketing. The specific issue my noble friend raises is exactly what we will be debating in relation to her amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
Does the Minister consider that Parliament’s imposition of mandatory jury directions would ever be an appropriate intrusion into the exercise of independent judicial discretion?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
The Government support the exercise of independent judicial discretion. We are, as the noble and learned Lord knows, taking measures in the Courts and Tribunals Bill to ensure that evidence in relation to previous sexual behaviour that should be inadmissible is inadmissible. There is also our approach to the relevance of previous domestic abuse convictions. Of course, judicial independence is absolutely essential to the rule of law.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I echo the Minister’s tribute to the women, and I would extend it to the journalists and media who have been quite dogged in this case. Does the Minister agree that any new anti-SLAPP law must contain an accessible early dismissal mechanism, such as that in my Private Member’s Bill, which is based on objective tests, to ensure that everyone subject to a SLAPP can access that mechanism? This includes litigants in person, such as Sylvie Berki, who has been subject to the most draconian injunction by Russell Brand—for life—preventing her even speaking to the police after accusing him of assault in 2014.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness. As I have said, I will not comment on the Russell Brand case—
Lord Lemos (Lab)
We will have an opportunity to debate SLAPPs again, not least in relation to the noble Baroness’s Private Member’s Bill.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while this House perhaps more than anywhere else will always be concerned to protect judicial independence and discretion, Parliament none the less legislates all the time? It is getting the balance right between discretion and rules that makes good law. Given the universality of rape myths in society and that in the past Parliament has intervened—for example, to prevent rape defendants cross-examining in person—this is a worthwhile debate that our noble friend Lady Levitt has raised.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
Yes, I absolutely agree that my noble friend has raised a worthwhile and important debate. At the heart of this is the fact that rape myths are pervasive, widespread and widely damaging in our society. That is what we need to do something about. The Government want to ensure—I am sure my noble friend agrees—that they are not used to distort criminal trials and retraumatise victims. Victims should never feel that they are on trial. We know we need to do better on ensuring that victims of rape and sexual abuse feel safe to seek justice. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Levitt’s work at the Crown Prosecution Service to achieve that. But this is ongoing work, and of course the Government will continue to think about it.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, worryingly and counterintuitively, young people seem unduly susceptible to rape myths. End Violence Against Women found, for example, that only half of 18 to 24 year-olds recognise that rape is still rape even if the victim does not physically fight back, and that only 42% of that age group realise that a relationship or marriage does not mean assumed consent to sex, as against 87% of over-65s. Does this not underline the need not only for clear directions to jurors, with which I fully agree, but for more and better sex and relationship education in school?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
Yes, it does. The noble Lord’s points about the attitudes of young people are well known and deeply concerning, and they certainly need to be addressed through relationship and sex education. But it is not just young people: I make the fairly obvious point that we are particularly concerned about how some of these myths are perpetrated online and the access that young people have to that. That is why our work in the Online Safety Act, which is ongoing, will continue. This is an extremely important area of work, and the noble Lord draws our attention to how it is a matter not simply of the law but of wider attitudes in society among young people, and we need to address that on a very broad front.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
It is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)
I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. Will the Minister agree with me, at least in respect of the following short propositions? First, the Court of Appeal has now, for almost two decades, been giving judgments about rape myths and encouraging judges to give directions in appropriate cases. Secondly, it would be a very good idea, before this matter is debated later in Committee, were everybody to read the Crown Court Compendium dealing with this topic. It is comprehensive, detailed and instructive. Thirdly, picking up the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, will the Minister agree that it is unprecedented for Parliament to seek to instruct judges on how they should direct juries, as opposed to laying down the substantive law, and that to do so would be an unacceptable intrusion upon judicial independence?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble and learned Lord for that question. As he says, we will debate it next week. But the principles he sets out are of course the right ones, and I agree with him. I have actually read the Judicial College’s Crown Court Compendium on this subject, and I commend it to people where the guidance may be necessary. I do not want to jump the gun on this—we will debate it in relation to my noble friend Lady Levitt’s amendment next week—but the principles he lays out seem entirely responsible and sensible.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble and learned friend on our Front Bench by saying that, subject to appropriate guidance from the Court of Appeal, directions are best left to the discretion of the trial judge, who has presided over the trial and is familiar with the issues.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I think I have made it clear, but I am happy to make it clear again, that the principle of judicial independence in these cases—in all cases, indeed—is a fundamental building block of the rule of law. We are not seeking to undermine that in any way. As I have said, independent judges already can and do give direction concerning rape myths; we do not want these myths to be weaponised, but we also do not want that to compromise the independence of judges.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, we have rightly been reflecting on the trauma that victims and survivors face in court and trying to see how we can reduce that. One of the things that make trauma worse is the sheer length of the delay between when offences are committed and initially detected and when trials happen. What work are the Government doing with the Crown Prosecution Service to try to see that serious sexual offenders are brought to justice more quickly, so that survivors and victims do not have to wait so long to give their evidence?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I entirely agree with the right reverend Prelate on the damage that delays, particularly in the Crown Court but also in the magistrates’ courts, do to victims in those circumstances. That is why the Government are legislating in the Courts and Tribunals Bill. It is not a question simply of working with the Crown Prosecution Service, which of course we will, and already, do; it is with the specific intention of reducing waiting times and the damage those do to victims that we are legislating.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, the evidence is that judges sometimes look as though they have not actually read the guidance, which leads to very different interpretations and control of trials. In the north-east, in Northumberland, a previous PCC recruited a group of women as volunteers who were given in-depth training around what the law actually meant and said, and they would turn up at rape trials. The judge would know that they were there—it was all agreed beforehand—but it meant that the judges were much more attentive to how they conducted the trials. When that happened, you did not get what I saw, with one group of perpetrators behaving so badly that the victims—or the alleged victims, as the alleged perpetrators would have said—actually left the courtroom and left the case because they were being so intimidated during the trial. We need to improve how we do it. Can we make sure that we improve these things by widening the number of people who say something?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My noble friend is clearly right that if the experience of being a victim and giving evidence in these cases is so traumatising or retraumatising, one can understand—particularly, as the right reverend Prelate said, in the context of long delays—why victims would find that a really serious problem. As I have said, that leads to us not having the track record that we would wish for in prosecuting these cases. The specific initiative that my noble friend refers to is a civil society initiative, and I welcome civil society initiatives such as that as part of an ongoing social campaign to change this question of rape.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister’s comments on Friday:
“We need to do more to support victims of sexual assault and rape, and we will do that”
have been broadly welcomed by survivors but have also raised expectations of swift action. What concrete steps are the Government going to take to provide that support?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness and pay tribute to her for her own work in this area. On what we are doing to support rape victims, we are introducing independent legal advisers for victims of adult rape this year, with £6 million of initial funding over the next two years. We are introducing a package of crucial legislative reform to protect victims, which I have already talked about, and we are delivering on our commitment to introduce a specialist rape and serious sexual offences court, backed by £23 million of funding. That is an extremely important initiative—and I see the noble Baroness nodding in agreement. The way in which those courts are rolled out—and, as she knows, we are rolling them out— will, we hope, make a big difference.
Finally, we are establishing a new rape justice taskforce, chaired by the Lord Chancellor and bringing together leaders from across the criminal justice system, directly to tackle the rising rate of postponed rape trials and confront the rape myths that cause victims to withdraw from their own cases. I hope that that full answer gives the noble Baroness the reassurance that she seeks.