This time last year the Crown Prosecution Service had just published an explanation of the mistakes made in the decisions not to charge Jimmy Savile. These showed a culture that had let down not only his victims, but many others who had not been listened to, believed, or given the chance to have a jury hear their case. I felt those mistakes keenly because I became a prosecutor 25 years ago to help victims to see justice being done.
That review heralded a much- needed rethink of our approach to older cases of sexual assault and rape — one that must continue. It did not represent a knee-jerk reaction in the opposite direction. To those who say recent high-profile acquittals show that police and prosecutors are overcompensating for past failings, I say quite simply that we are not. If we took to court only cases where, on the papers, we were certain of a conviction, we would rightly be accused of being over-cautious. Justice can only be done if prosecutors remain independent and fair, regardless of who a defendant might be.
Rape and sexual assaults are some of the hardest cases to prosecute. Our conviction rate for rape has increased to just over 60 per cent, while for all cases taken to court it is more than 80 per cent, highlighting the difficulty with rape and sexual offences. Often there are no witnesses, it comes down to one person’s word against another; the accuser was in a relationship with the accused; and, of course, not every accused person is guilty. We consider these cases very carefully, so many do not get to court.
As prosecutors we rigorously apply the same test to the evidence in every criminal case before taking it to court. That does not guarantee a conviction, but means that we have decided that a jury should hear the evidence and that the defendant gets the opportunity to challenge it. Where there are several allegations each must pass the same test. We do not use the number of possible offences as an indicator of strength, but look at each individually. A decision to prosecute cases together allows a jury to consider an alleged pattern of offending and spares the defendant from multiple trials. It is absolutely not an attempt to strengthen a case.
Our job is not to decide innocence or guilt. We filter out cases where the evidence is too weak, but where there is sufficient evidence, we must let the jury do its job. These decisions are not taken lightly, but the prosecutor does not have the benefit of testing the evidence in the way the trial process rightly allows.
Juries have a much harder task than prosecutors for they must be sure of guilt: logic and justice dictate that there will be both acquittals and convictions. That task is even harder when many years have passed as there may be no forensic evidence and little corroborative evidence.
Some may ask why the victim remained silent for so many years, but there can be many reasons for this. They can often feel shame, even though the shame is not theirs to feel. They can feel the system is against them and be reluctant to expose to strangers intimate details they would prefer to forget. Who can blame them? Even with the approach now being taken by the police and CPS, including much better support, the trial process is difficult and can be deeply invasive and personal.
So long as our criminal justice system is working effectively, we will continue to see acquittals in these types of cases. But we are also seeing convictions. Up and down the country cases of non-recent sexual abuse and sexual assault are resulting in significant jail sentences. I use the term “non-recent” rather than “historic” because for victims the impact remains to this day.
Let me give you a few examples: a 40-year-old former teacher is serving 12 years for offences dating back 14 years after being convicted at Swindon Crown Court. In Leicester a defendant was sentenced to 18 years for sexual offences going back almost 20 years. A 14-year sentence was passed at Maidstone Crown Court for offences from the 1960s. In December another former teacher was jailed by Lewes Crown Court for offences between 1964 and 1976.
Should these prosecutions have taken place? Of course. Parliament agrees, as it has set no time limit on bringing rape and sexual offence cases, as it has for other offences. The public would be horrified if we did not prosecute because a complaint came many years after the event.
It used to be that if a rape victim wore a short skirt her credibility was undermined. Thankfully we have moved on. Now we must be careful not to establish new myths that victims come forward only for financial or other motives. I believe that most complainants have heard that they will finally be treated with the respect they deserve. That remains the case and I will do my utmost to ensure that we continue to support them and bring their cases to court wherever possible.
Alison Saunders is the Director of Public Prosecutions
This article originally appeared in the Times on Thursday 20 February 2014
