Government to review law on rape complainants after Ched Evans case

A government review is to be carried out of the law protecting alleged rape victims from having to reveal details of their sex lives in the wake of the Ched Evans case.

The move comes amid concerns that the conduct of the footballer’s retrial had “weakened” safeguards for complainants and could deter women coming forward to report sexual offences in other cases.

The 27-year-old was cleared last month of raping a woman in a hotel room in 2011 after details of her sexual history were heard in court.

Evans was initially found guilty of the rape in 2012, but his conviction was quashed in April and a retrial ordered.

Defence lawyers have been barred from cross-examining alleged rape victims in court about their sexual behaviour or history since 1999, but the Court of Appeal said Evans’ case was exceptional.

Lady Justice Hallett ruled it was a “rare case” in which it would be appropriate to allow “forensic examination” of the woman’s sexual behaviour.

The unusual step saw the inclusion of evidence from two other men who claimed they had sex with the woman around the same time of the alleged offence and who described their encounters with her in terms that supported Mr Evans’s account of what had happened.

Campaigners reacted angrily at the time to the move, which they warned set a dangerous legal precedent.

Under Section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 there are tight restrictions on details of an alleged victims’ sexual past which can be presented in court, other than in exceptional circumstances.

Calls for a report into the operation of the legislation were made during the committee stage of the Policing and Crime Bill in the House of Lords.

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, a Liberal Democrat peer and QC, said: “The point here and the point that we seek to have reviewed is whether as a result of the Ched Evans case there might be cases where the restrictive nature of Section 41 has or may be watered down and we need to look at how its operating.

“It is very important that rape gets reported and it is very important that the legislation in place is certainly as restrictive as we always thought Section 41 was and as the textbooks say it is.

“And the public concern is that this case seems to have weakened that protection.”

Home Office minister Baroness Williams of Trafford told peers questions about a complainant’s previous sexual history were only allowed when “a strict set of criteria are met”.

But she added: “We are aware of the recent concern about the admissibility of a complainant’s sexual history and wider perceptions about the law.

“We accept that the concerns should be looked at and we intend to deal with it.

“We have committed to looking at how the law is working in practice and we will do so as expeditiously as possible in order to understand whether any further action needs to be taken.”

Earlier, a proposal was put forward by Liberal Democrat peer Lord Paddick aimed at protecting the anonymity of sex crime suspects before they are charged.

He highlighted the impact false accusations had had on the singer Sir Cliff Richard, the DJ Paul Gambaccini and the widow of the late former home secretary Lord Brittan.

Lord Paddick, a former Met deputy assistant commissioner, said: “I passionately believe in justice, but not in justice at any cost.

“The rights of the accused in sexual offences need to be considered alongside those of the victim.

“Quite rightly, there is public abhorrence of those who commit sexual offences, particularly against those who are too young to consent. The damage to the reputations of those accused can therefore be irrevocably damaged.

“Sexual offences can be of a nature where allegations are easy to make, where there is no corroborative evidence and where the consequences for those falsely accused can be devastating. It is time we seriously considered this amendment.”

Opposition spokesman Lord Rosser said: “Granting anonymity specifically for those suspected of sexual offences could imply that a person making a complaint in respect of such an offence was not to be believed in the same way as someone making a complaint involving another individual in relation to any other kind of offence, such as child cruelty.”

He added: “Unless firm evidence can be produced that the terms of the amendment would not result in more perpetrators of sexual offences escaping prosecution because others who may have been the subject of similar assaults do not come forward – because they are unaware that the individual is being investigated, and instead feel that if they did come forward they would be on their own – the amendment cannot be supported.”

Responding for the Government, Lady Williams said there was a presumption of anonymity before charge but pointed out that “in certain circumstances the police authorise release so that any other potential victims of a suspect are encouraged to come forward”.

She added: The introduction of a statutory scheme would hamper the police’s ability to act in this way.

“We know that such identification can help other victims to recognise that they are not the only ones who have suffered sexual abuse and this might encourage them to overcome their reluctance to come forward.

“Victims must feel that they are able to come forward and report abuse to the police as well as getting the support that they need.”

The minister went on: “We must not undermine victims’ confidence in our response to sexual offences.

“Agreeing this amendment could send a message to sexual offence victims that they are less likely to be believed than victims of any other crime. This would be an undeniably retrograde step.”

_{Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2016, All Rights Reserved. Picture (c) Ben Birchall / PA Wire.}