Please find the time to download and read the recently released Consultation Paper on Domestic Violence:  'Safety & Justice: The Government Proposals on Domestic Violence'.

The Bill was recently amended in the House of Lords and RCF/CER (Campaign to End Rape) have supported many of these.  However, we believe better protection and greater clarity would be achieved if our recommendations are adopted.  To summarise our recommendations are as follows:

1.  Reject:  anonymity for sex offenders

Clause 2 of the Bill as amended in the Lords now provides for anonymity for persons accused of rape and sexual offences.  We believe that this would be bad law.  Nowhere else in the law is an accused person given anonymity.  We believe that making an exception for sex offenders is likely to obstruct investigations into serious crime.  In particular, we believe that presently, women who would otherwise be too afraid to report rape come forward when they realize that their assailant has raped again.  The police in such situations then have sufficient evidence to make a rape charge stick where otherwise the rapist might go free to rape again.  Also giving this protection only to those accused of rape sends an unhelpful (and unfounded) message that complainants are less likely to be telling the truth than in other crimes

2.  Support:  reasonableness in belief in consent

Currently, a defendant can avoid a conviction for rape by claiming to have honestly believed he had consent, even when a reasonable person would never have held such a belief.  An acquittal will follow in a rape trial unless the prosecution can convince the jury that a defendant's belief in consent was not honestly held.  If Clause 1.3 as amended in the Lords becomes law, the jury will be able to convict if the prosecution prove that a defendant's belief was not reasonable.  It introduces a requirement of reasonableness into a defendant's claim to have 'honestly believed' that a complainant was consenting to sexual intercourse.  As well as considering the defendant's perception of the situation, the jury will be required to use their collective life-experience to assess, objectively, the reasonableness of any purported belief.  We believe that this is an essential reform of the current law and a fair one and we urge MPs to give it their support and to resist any further dilution of the reasonableness test through the introduction of characteristics.

3.  Support:  greater clarification as to the meaning of consent. 

Clause 75 provides statutory clarification of what is meant by consent.  We welcome this as an improvement in the law, which currently provides no assistance.  However, we believe that the Bill does not go far enough.  There should be a simple, straightforward definition of consent in addition to the clarification already provided.  Consent is the linchpin upon which all sexual offences rely.  It is vital that the jury understand what may and may not constitute consent.  We ask MPs to support an amendment to the Bill, which includes the definition 'free agreement'.

For Further details and the RCF/CER Legal Briefing Paper contact: CATHYAT278@aol.com

How to Contact Your MP
You can write to your MP at the following address:  House of Commons, Palace of Westminster, London, SW1A 0AA (Tel: 020 7219 3000).  It is usually a good idea to write to your MP in the first instance, so that you can explain things clearly and so that your MP will have written details before her/him.  However, if you would like to speak to your MP's office at the House of Commons, please telephone the switchboard (020 7219 3000) and ask to be transferred to the appropriate office.  The switchboard can also take a message for your MP.