‘Sexual harassment at the bar is not being reported because pupils and young lawyers fear their careers will be damaged if they complain, according to a senior barrister, Prof Jo Delahunty QC suggested there was widespread complacency about the prevalence of inappropriate behaviour in chambers and even by judges in courts.’
Read the story on the Guardian website here.
Subscribe to the service here. I’m doing it.
Ann Coffey MP drew attention to the research findings on prejudices, juries and rape cases in a debate in Parliament on 21st November 2018. Watch Ann Coffey MP here.
I have previously blogged about the research here.
“Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, QC, told the annual Bar conference in London that courts needed to be more aware of women’s rights and the #MeToo movement … A government survey three years ago found that a third of the public generally had the view that sex attack victims bore partial responsibility for an assault if they had been “flirting heavily” with their attacker.”
Read the full story in The Times.
‘What are the biggest obstacles when it comes to rape convictions? Vachss is unequivocal. Prejudices held by jurors, and the reluctance, both here and in the US, to bring “difficult” cases to court, such as those involving prostitutes, drug and alcohol users, and teenage girls (all of whom are often seen as unreliable witnesses).’
Excellent article from 2007 by journalist and founder of Justice for Women, Julie Bindel.
Sounds alarming? Not if you’ve been keeping up with the news.
Ann Coffey MP will be raising this issue in an adjournment debate this morning from 11am in the House of Commons. In today’s Times, referring to the ‘shockingly low charging and conviction rates’, the MP raises the issue in this way:
‘Rape myths about how victims are expected to behave continue to pollute our society and jurors take these attitude into the court room.’
In the article the MP also refers to recent research, which I helped with as legal adviser. I and Dr Dominic Willmott of the psychology department of Huddersfield University arranged several sophisticated mock rape trials involving case papers and actors and barristers, and the juries (randomly invited as in real life from the electoral roll using jury ‘summonses’) were psychologically profiled and their findings assessed.
What we found shocked us. Read my post about the research on the BoothBlog.
The Guardian covers today’s debate here.
I guess the choice is:
A: “The parking restriction here applies to motor caravans only, and they may not be parked here between the hours of 11pm and 7am.”
B: “The parking restriction here applies to all motor vehicles including motor caravans, and they may not be parked here between the hours of 11pm and 7am.”
Booth would go for Choice A. Am I wrong?
Defence closing speech (dealing with absence of defendant from dock):
“Let’s be honest. There is an elephant in the room, and that elephant is that there isn’t an elephant in the room.”
I have updated Chapter 9 which is the chapter dealing with disclosure of unused material. The updates are pretty substantial, so I’ve simply decided to reproduce Chapter 9 in its entirety on the Updates page. Access it here directly.
A teenager’s underwear has been used against her in an alleged rape case in Cork, sparking outrage among campaigners. The barrister representing a man acquitted of raping a teenager in the city in southwest Ireland suggested the jury in the case should reflect on the underwear worn by the 17-year-old girl. The 27-year-old man – who had denied raping the woman in a lane in Cork – was found not guilty by the jury of eight men and four women at the Central Criminal Court.
— Read on www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/teenage-girl-underwear-rape-trial-cork-sex-latest-a8625871.html