To ask His Majesty’s Government what are the main factors that have led to decades of low levels of rape cases being prosecuted, and continue to prevent such prosecutions, and what steps are they taking to resolve this.
My Lords, I would like to thank in advance all noble Lords who are speaking today. I will be listening very closely to the two former Met Police Commissioners here today, because they probably not only understand the problems but know exactly where the solutions lie. I hope the Government will be listening to them as closely as I will.
We all know that our country is failing rape victims, who are mainly but not exclusively women. I could stand here all day and quote figures that show how bad things are now, and how bad they were a decade ago or even three or four decades ago. Misogyny is not new, and it is the root of most rapes. There have been times when women could be priests, or even gods, but extreme misogyny arose in Assyria two and a half thousand years ago and brought it into politics and religion.
I could talk about the way that young working-class girls in Rotherham were not believed and were ignored. We could explore the allegations of police collusion and corruption, with links to local drug gangs, or I could go back a decade and talk about the failures of the police when the Yorkshire ripper was killing sex workers. There is the scandal of Jimmy Savile, operating as a sexual predator in plain sight, with powerful friends in the BBC and Downing Street; or Worboys, the taxi driver who the police believe had 100 victims, some of whom had reported being assaulted before he was finally caught.
Each of these cases has the common threads of women and girls not being believed or fearing they would not be believed. There are the half-hearted investigations of women who do report and the professional scepticism of Crown Prosecution Service staff about whether a jury is going to convict. There is the character assassination of survivors and the intrusive exploration of their personal lives by the authorities, which are meant to be supporting them in getting justice. These high-profile cases open up the public debate, but they are the merest fraction of the lived experience of hundreds of thousands of women and girls who have reported, or not reported, gone to trial, or tried to, and then given up in despair.
What is striking in reading through the library of previous reports, inquiries and ministerial speeches is the repeated themes and recommendations. They tend to broadly agree with the existing policy relating to the investigation and prosecution of rape and then state that this policy is not being properly implemented. These kinds of failures are long standing. It can feel as though the repeated commissioning of these reviews and inspections is a way for government and other authorities to indicate concern, while never following through with the action and resources needed to make change. I am absolutely positive that this Labour Government will do better than that.
From the 1980s onwards, we had a slow but positive shift in the way the police and Crown prosecutors handled rape cases—from the setting up of rape investigation rooms and the swift collection of forensic evidence, to a merit-based approach to prosecution that looked at the evidence, rather than second-guessing what a jury might or might not decide. Coming out of the scandal of grooming gangs in several northern towns, Sir Keir Starmer, the then head of the Crown Prosecution Service, argued that it was not a question of the victim’s behaviour or criminal record, but whether the crime had happened. He said:
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, on securing this debate and on her powerful speech. I regret very much that it is needed. During my research for this debate, my feelings were of—I do not use this word lightly—anger and incredulity that it is 2025 and we are still talking about this. I have three young daughters. My eldest is 14 and is just at the stage where she is travelling around London on the bus on her own. She asked me what I was doing today and I said I was coming to talk about this: the failure of the criminal justice system to protect victims and survivors of one of the most brutal and degrading offences.
Looking at the last Parliament, there was a recent victory for campaigners in last year’s change in the law to better protect survivors’ counselling notes. The cross-party work done by my noble friend Lady Bertin and others in the House—supported by the Minister when he was in his shadow role, as I remember—highlighted the uphill battle to ensure that survivors are treated with dignity and care.
I want to focus my remarks today on the first stage of the reporting process: the early stage, when victims and survivors of rape decide whether they are able to go to the police or, indeed, whether they are not. We can see the barriers: the ONS Crime Survey for England and Wales reported that of respondents who had told someone that they had been raped but not the police, 38% thought that the police could not help them and a quarter thought that the police would not believe them. The last Government’s rape review reported that the percentage of victims who withdraw at the police stage has never fallen below 41% and, at the time of its report, it was sitting at 61%.
I acknowledge the action taken by the previous Administration and picked up by this one to improve processes. I welcome the progress made by Operation Soteria, the College of Policing and others, but it has taken far too long for victims’ voices to be heard and longer still for this to be translated into action.
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for this well-timed opportunity to debate this issue. I did not disagree with anything that the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, just said. The problems of rape investigations, prosecutions and convictions are well known and understood; they have been there too long. What is less well developed are the solutions, and I will try to address that today.
Only one in six rapes is reported and of those reported, only one in 50 leads to a charge. Of those charged, only one in two leads to a conviction. That is a terrible pyramid, I am afraid, of failure, and a quite pathetic outcome. When we consider that crimes of violence—which these are—are crimes where the victim was present, is able to provide a description of the offender and perhaps even the name, and can say where evidence may be found, it is even more bizarre that we are not getting better outcomes from our system. The investigation is less likely to identify the suspect in a stranger attack, but less likely to see a prosecution where there is an existing relationship. The issue becomes one of proving consent, unless, of course, the victim is too young to provide that consent in law.
The whole process is hindered, in my view, by three things. First, this offence involves the most intimate and private of events: sexual activity. That makes it difficult to recount in public, to talk about to anyone else and to talk about exactly what happened. That is a challenge for anybody. Secondly, it takes a long time for an investigation to get to court, which causes obvious problems for the victim in recounting the evidence and persuading a jury that something happened. Finally, proving lack of consent requires careful collection and presentation of evidence. I believe that we must deal with these three issues in a radical way if we are to overhaul the system.
My suggested improvements are these. First, the police are most efficient and effective when they deploy in teams. We see that in counterterrorist investigations, murder investigations and complex fraud cases. However, with rape offences, single officers are often deployed. There are some great officers who can make progress, despite the challenges, which we all know about, but I am afraid that, increasingly, we need a team approach. This is a resourcing issue: you must either move them from what they are doing or give them more, but it needs to be addressed. The time for a team approach has come. We could get the same sort of outcomes that we see with murder cases. During my time and now, murder investigations in London had a detection rate of around 95%. It is entirely possible to have good detection rates—if you apply the right resources and the right skills to make sure that you have the right person and can convince a jury.
I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on bringing this matter before the Committee. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I agree with everything that my noble friend and colleague Lord Hogan-Howe has said, but I have some additional things to say.
The year 1988 was a seminal time for the investigation of rape. A television programme was produced on Thames Valley Police, much against the views and opinion of the Association of Chief Police Officers. It created absolute mayhem by showing the way police officers were approaching and tackling rape. I happen to believe that it is now time for another seminal moment. Why would I say that?
In his recent report, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary said that the loss of public trust is about the failure
“to get the basics right”.
Surely, the investigation of rape is one of the primary things the police could deliver. There have been improvements since 1923—I mean 2023; that shows you how old I am. There has been an increase in the charging rate of 51% compared to the previous year. However, the success rate does not follow, so there are some strange figures around; I could not make much of the ones I have here myself. Although the conviction rate decreased, the volume of convictions increased, which means that the quality of cases going to the CPS and the courts, and being investigated by the police, is not quite reaching the level it could.
Rape has recently been a very important issue, and how we handle it has been shown to be not up to scratch. In her 2021-22 report, the Victims’ Commissioner, Dame Vera Baird, said:
“The distressing truth is that if you are raped in Britain today, your chances of seeing justice are slim”.
I do not believe that is quite the position now. Protections have increased but, as the Committee will hear in a minute, there are massive deficiencies in relation to the people charged with doing the job itself and, more importantly, taking these cases through the courts.
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for convening this debate, which is very necessary and comes at a very appropriate time. Before we even start, however, digital research from the CSEW showed that fewer than one in six victims—16%—of sexual assault by rape or penetration had reported the incident to the police. The most common reasons given for non-reporting were embarrassment, at 40%; that they did not think the police could help, at 38%; and that they thought it would be humiliating, at 34%. All of those may well be true, but also, one-quarter of victims thought that the police would not believe them. That is something we can start working on strongly with the new Government.
I think we can safely assume that, whatever the final numbers are, the number of charges, let alone convictions, is infinitesimal compared to the number of rapes perpetrated. The number of prosecutions is increasing, although, as we have heard, conviction rates are decreasing. However, there is also an increase in what the CPS calls victim attrition, which a number of colleagues have mentioned this afternoon: prosecutions that stopped because the victim no longer supported, or was unable to support, a conviction. No wonder many perpetrators continue with impunity, given that they are never likely to be prosecuted. That is one of the most fundamental things. We know that certainty of prosecution is a big issue when it comes to perpetrators considering what they are doing.
What steps would make a difference? The causes and outcomes are very complex. First, there is the “He said, she said” argument. Police must gather enough evidence to refer a case to the Crown Prosecution Service, but there has been a great increase in the information available to consider: mobile phones, social media, et cetera. This does not always work out in the victim’s favour; it is a continuation of the “She must have been asking for it” type of argument. Being asked to hand over their mobile phone has led many victims to withdraw their complaint. In the words of Dame Vera Baird:
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for securing this debate. It addresses a matter of profound urgency and importance, and one that speaks directly to justice, safety and equality in our society. The stark reality remains that too many victims of rape and sexual assault in the UK are being denied justice.
The figures are sobering. Although thousands of rape cases are reported every year, only a small fraction result in charges being brought. In the 12 months to July last year, the Crown Prosecution Service discontinued 496 rape cases. The proportion of rape prosecutions being dropped has also risen in recent years—up from 9.3% in 2022 to 12.8% at the end of last year. Low prosecution rates erode trust, silence survivors and result in crimes going unpunished. It is essential that we confront this issue with both urgency and compassion—a point made by all noble Lords who have contributed thus far.
Crippling court delays are thought to be a major contributing factor in why victims choose to abandon the process before a trial takes place. Victims face resource constraints in policing. In the Crown Prosecution Service, concerns have emerged that the changes to the rules about how digital evidence is handled have the potential to have adverse impacts on victims seeking justice. However, this has been disputed by representatives from Rape Crisis, who have said that the protections afforded to victims regarding digital evidence were vital in keeping them engaged—a point already raised in this debate.
Others have expressed concerns that although rape convictions have doubled over five years, the number of prosecutions that have been dropped has tripled. The importance of resource to deal with rape cases has been made very well today, and I am interested in the Minister’s thoughts on that.
The previous Government took steps to support victims, ensure justice is delivered and restore public confidence in the system. First, we made record investments in victim support services, providing survivors with more resources. We increased funding for rape crisis centres and nearly doubled the number of independent sexual violence advisers.
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate, particularly, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for bringing this debate here today. One main theme in the debate has been the issue of trust: trust within the criminal justice system and, particularly, trust in women when they report rape. That underlies all the speeches made here this afternoon.
Rape and other sexual offences are among the most serious crimes that can be committed. It is right that we work hard to ensure that survivors receive the swift and compassionate response from our criminal justice system that they deserve. This Government were elected on a clear, landmark pledge to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade. Improving the criminal justice system’s response to rape is central to that pledge. Although our pledge necessarily focuses on the disproportionate impact of these crimes on women, we recognise that men and boys can also be victims of sexual offences, including rape. Noble Lords might note that I introduced the relevant amendment for male rape in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and that has changed the perception of male victims of sexual offences.
As we have heard, if you are a victim of rape in this country today, your chances of seeing your case reach trial are low, despite the courage it takes for survivors to come forward. Only a fraction of reported cases end in prosecution and, if charges are brought, it may take years for your case to come to trial. While the number of rape prosecutions has increased over recent years—now at the highest level since 2010—they continue to fall short of what victims, and the wider public, would expect. This Government are determined to transform the response to rape in this country, so that victims are supported and perpetrators brought to justice swiftly. That is our goal. It is a simple one, even if the task itself is not.
1:55 pm
Sitting suspended.
“if the yardstick traditionally used by prosecutors for evaluating the credibility of a victim in other cases were used without adaptation in cases of sexual exploitation, the outcome would potentially be a category of vulnerable victims left unprotected by the criminal law.”
He was absolutely right.
These changes, combined with the #MeToo campaign and a series of high-profile historical scandals, led to a huge increase in the reporting of rape cases. This was a success, but it came just as austerity led to the slow collapse of the criminal justice system. The result has been a disaster for rape victims—rape survivors—who have been seriously let down by an overstretched judicial system that has responded in the worst of all possible ways. It is a system that promises justice but delivers delays and failure.
The numbers of rapes recorded by the police increased steadily from the 1980s but tripled between 2014 and 2018, reaching their highest-ever volume. The number of reported rapes being successfully prosecuted has, however, dropped from 25% in 1981 to 1% or 2% in recent years.
Instead of our society recognising the scale of a hidden scandal and putting resources into achieving justice when hundreds of thousands of people started reporting this horrendous but regular, everyday crime, what the last Government did was to cut police, lawyers and police time. The Crown Prosecution Service quietly dropped the merit-based approach and rationed cases going forwards based on a Ladbrokes betting shop analysis of the odds of a jury convicting the alleged assailant—I am going to be very careful about naming the person I believe is responsible for that, because I am not sure whether saying it in the House of Lords gives me cover from prosecution.
The solution is more resources, and that means making it a priority within the judicial system—no more delaying trials for a year or more, so that the rape survivor gives up all hope of justice and drops out from emotional exhaustion. As long as rape is a crime that people think they can get away with, they will do it. Do this Government, or any Government, want rape legalised? The year-on-year failures make that appear, near enough, the outcome of austerity.
The other thing the Government can do is education and changing the culture. This is incredibly important and I feel that this avenue of recovery has not been explored. In France, Gisèle Pelicot has done this and changed the culture of shame from being all on the survivor to the shame being directed at all the men who raped her, all those who colluded and all those who did not report to the police what was happening. We need Ministers to get behind survivors and make it clear that rape is not just about grooming gangs, spiked drinks, dodgy taxi drivers or even police officers. All those need dealing with but, distressingly, most sexual assaults are about familiar and comfortable environments and people whom you know. Therefore, education is absolutely basic to sorting out this problem. I look forward very much to hearing what the Minister will say in reply. If he could pick up that point about education, I would be very grateful.
We have a strategic policing requirement, which includes requiring violence against women and girls and domestic abuse to be tackled, but it is a depressingly patchy performance at best. Operation Soteria recognised that good practice was observed but was dependent on individual officers rather than built into systems and policies. I very much welcome this Government’s commitment to establishing specialist teams and the other commitments they have made on vetting, et cetera. I urge them to continue at pace, but the fundamental issue here is one of trust. While systems and processes are core to that trust, there is a deeper issue at play.
What really drove me to sign up to today’s debate is the need to spend more time talking about the culture within police forces, specifically attitudes to women and girls. Of course, given the topic today, it is important to acknowledge that men are also victims of rape, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, and I would never seek to minimise that. As the Home Affairs Select Committee recognised, women are more likely than men to experience rape, and the majority of perpetrators are men. I feel unable to strike an optimistic tone in this debate because too many revelations—from the 2022 IOPC review and the 2023 Casey review of the Met—have highlighted sexist and misogynistic behaviours in policing.
I am aware that many police officers do an excellent job. Like everyone in this Room, I am sure, I was brought up to respect and trust the police, and I am bringing up my own daughters to do so. They do a very difficult job. I am not saying that the failures on this specific issue are directly related to misogynistic behaviour—mistakes are made and the two are not necessarily linked—but the fact that the College of Policing is, in 2025, running a strategy to tackle misogynistic behaviours within policing tells us a lot, surely, about the impact of culture on performance. If women are to come forward, trust comes first. If their experiences when they come forward are to change, then culture is at the heart of it. Surely, given that our police forces clearly want to be able to recruit the best people to tackle violence against women and girls, they need to ensure that their culture supports this without fail.
Having listened to Ministers in the previous Administration and this one at the Dispatch Box, I believe that there is the political will to end violence against women and girls. That will require commitment to supporting police leadership to drive change, but also holding them properly to account by asking what exactly they are doing to call out such behaviour when they see it and hear it.
I finish by paying tribute to the victims and survivors. I hope that we can continue to work cross-party to do better.
Also, rape has become a more complex crime to investigate. Far more digital evidence is now available, which is great, but you have to find it and share it with the defence. It has to be sifted, and presented in a way that a jury will understand. These are new and significant skills that the police are going to have to learn.
The police also need to investigate the history of the suspect’s prior relationships. We have a history of investigating the victim’s prior relationships. That has stopped—in a good way—but we do not do enough to check whether the suspect’s previous behaviour and relationships indicate that this incident was likely to happen. Often, obviously, we do not know who these people are, but we could investigate and discover who they might be.
As has been said, rape reporting and charging have been inhibited by the victim’s experience of reporting. Police attitudes have improved drastically over the past 20 years, but they are clearly still not good enough. People are trying to make progress, but one of the challenges for prosecutors and investigators is that they anticipate the victim’s experience in court. We have, I am afraid, an adversarial system that tries to destroy the victim and their evidence, albeit not as directly as it used to. Why cannot the adversarial system become more of a search for the truth in these cases? It is entirely possible. Iceland has a good method of dealing with child victims of crime: it carries out a search for the truth, not an attack on the person who claims they were attacked.
Sadly, juries tend to make moral judgments, even if the law says that they should not. Investigators and prosecutors overly anticipate the jury’s conclusions and therefore do not even get to the charging stage. That also infects the whole investigation process. I would argue that the adversarial legal system does not provide a good context in which these cases can go forward.
Of course, 70% of victims are vulnerable at the time of the attack. They are vulnerable because they experienced an attack, but they might also have had alcohol. They might be very young, very old, or mentally ill. That is often the reason why they are picked—because they are vulnerable. However, this does not make them a consistent witness later, I am afraid. Consistency is a test of truth. Any of us might ask, “You didn’t say that then, so why did you change your mind?” Unfortunately, some victims just do not have sufficient recollection to make them a powerful witness. The system has to acknowledge that and make sure that, if they are particularly vulnerable, the balance of the defence is put on to the suspect, so that we ask, “Was consent present or not?” We do that with children. A child below the age of 16 cannot legally consent to sex. What about somebody who is mentally ill? What about someone who is very old? What about somebody who was intoxicated because the suspect made them intoxicated? Should we look at shifting the balance of proof in those cases?
Does the CPS have the right charging threshold in these cases? At the moment, it is broadly 51%—the case is more likely to succeed than fail. Secondly, there is a public interest test: even if that is true, should we charge in this case? Perhaps we should consider whether there is a prima facie case and whether it is in the public interest to prosecute; or is there somewhere between prima facie and a reasonable chance of success? We have to look at making it easier to get these cases, which we know involve complex legal issues, to court. We should experiment with prosecutor-led investigations. People have said that that means the prosecutor is therefore less independent, but Scotland seems to manage with a procurator fiscal system. Why can we not do that here in England and Wales?
The Government are talking about dedicated rape courts. Perhaps we could arrange to have such courts, which would work quicker. In Scotland, murder cases get to court within 100 days for committal, so why can we not do that for rapes? Why can we not say that they have to be in court within 90 calendar days? It could be a different time limit, but the Committee knows the point I am making about a timely deadline. The courts could sit more often; they sit for only 220 days out of 365. Perhaps the judges could take shorter holidays, or we could have more judges. By getting more court days in these cases, we could make a real difference.
Finally, these cases might benefit from the researching of jurors. At the moment in this country, it is illegal to research jurors. Why can we not do that in these cases, in order to find out what evidence persuades a juror and what evidence does not? America can do it but for some reason, we deny the possibility of investigating jurors’ decision-making processes. Particularly in these cases, where privacy and intimacy are such big issues, perhaps we ought to consider more how a jury reaches its decision.
I did my own research last night and the day before, with barristers who are prosecuting and defending, as well as two solicitors who are responsible for dealing with prosecution in these cases. One of the weaknesses they identified, my noble friend and colleague Lord Hogan-Howe has already talked about: victim attrition. It is said that it takes 10 months to bring a case from arrest, through investigation and questioning, to prosecution. My short and maybe faulty investigation shows that it now takes 18 months. That is what I have been told, but it cannot possibly be right. One of the reasons for that, which my noble friend and colleague has talked about, is the expertise of the people doing these investigations. You cannot have someone with no experience of detective work, investigation and forensic science doing a complicated rape case. You have to have one of the best detectives, who we use for terrorism and organised crime.
Returning to victim attrition, last year, 77 people decided that there was no point in going forward with a prosecution. They had to wait a further three to four years after the police had taken 10 to 18 months to get to court. That is an absolute disgrace and a scandal, and I know this Government accept that. How has it come about? I could go on about what has been done to the police over the past 25 to 30 years, and produce evidence of that, but this is not the time for that.
So, in view of where we are, my noble friend and colleague is right. We need expertise in the front line in investigating rapes, in order to do it in a proper way. The forensic side is massively important, because a lot of that will be what I call first-hand evidence. That has to be done by properly trained detectives, but there is a massive shortage of them in this country at the moment, for a number of reasons. Let us get that right. Then, let us consider how long it takes to prosecute, and the fast-tracking of CPS decisions. Equally important—although it is harder to do this in the present circumstances because of the state of the courts and the lack of barristers—is rapid charging: taking a case to court quickly, so that people’s memories of the trauma and violence they have experienced are fresh.
At the end of the day, we are all here for the Minister. We are here to help, not to criticise. Of course, we know about the terrible, tragic scandals involving people such as Couzens—that monster who was stalking the streets. But on this issue, things can be taken forward. We are not going to create Rome in a day, but we want to go stage by stage, improving what we are doing for victims. My message is similar to Bernard’s—how dare I refer to him by his Christian name!—we are here, it can be done and, if I may say so, this Government have made a very good start. I know the Minister and the Home Secretary are behind it, so let us get on with it, stage by stage. Your Lordships’ House needs to keep a watching brief on this, because it is too important to fail.
“They cannot face the unwarranted and unacceptable intrusion into their privacy”.
Charges for rape are as low—or nearly as low—as ever. The number of cases that have collapsed after failures in the way they were prosecuted is too high. That is totally inappropriate, and it is depressing. Then there are the time delays. According to the Home Affairs Committee, many victims say that if they had known how long it would take—we have heard that it can take 10 months, possibly now even 18 months—they would not have called the case to the attention of the police in the first place. That puts other victims in greater danger, too.
If there is enough evidence, only then can the accused perpetrator be charged. In the year to September 2021, just 1.3% of rape cases resulted in a charge, compared with 7.1% for all other recorded crime. Considering that we so frequently know the identity of the perpetrator, I am sure that everyone in this Room would agree that that is totally unacceptable. The CPS is bringing fewer rape prosecutions, often because the police do not put them forward. Why are fewer cases being put forward? In some cases, it is because the police have heard that the CPS is making fewer prosecutions. There is a self-fulfilling prophecy for noble Lords.
Then there is the funding. The Institute for Government estimated that the CPS budget was cut by 28% between 2009 and 2018. We are told that the Government have announced £40 million to support victims of crime, at least half of which is for community-based sexual violence and domestic abuse. Is that enough? I am sorry to say that I do not think it is—not by a long chalk. Cuts are still being made. RASA Merseyside, which supports victims with advice, counselling and guidance through the justice system, says that its funding has been reduced in real terms by 18%. There is more demand but fewer staff, leading to less support.
What is to be done? We have had some great suggestions this afternoon, all of which I am sure the Minister will carefully consider. The new Labour Government have described prosecution rates for rape as “shamefully low” and pledged “tougher enforcement and protection”. They said:
“The most prolific and harmful perpetrators will be relentlessly targeted, using tactics normally reserved for terrorists and organised crime”.
That is fully justified, given the amount of terror they cause.
The Government have also pledged to fast-track rape cases, with specialist courts at every Crown Court location in England and Wales, which sounds good. I would be interested to know within what timescale the Minister thinks we may get those specialist courts up and running.
I certainly welcome the Government’s announcement of plans to
“roll out free, independent legal advocates for victims and survivors of adult rape”
from 2025. They said the advocates would ensure that victims
“have support to enforce their legal rights, for example, in relation to the use of personal records during an investigation or in court”.
Many fundamental assumptions are holding us back. I am intrigued and heartened by the suggestions we have heard this afternoon. So come on, Labour, let us get on with the job. Can we not think a little bit more outside the box?
Secondly, under Conservative leadership, an action plan for improving the criminal justice system’s response to rape in England and Wales was published, and reports have been published every year since then to update Parliament and the public on the progress made in implementing recommendations in the action plans. It would be good to have an update on this.
Finally, we legislated to end the automatic halfway release for offenders sentenced for crimes such as rape, manslaughter and grievous bodily harm.
As a result of the implementation of these measures, progress was made in the prosecution of rape cases. Data from July to September 2023 showed that adult rape cases referred by the police to the CPS continued to increase: there were 1,470 police referrals in this period. In fact, we increased rape prosecutions by 56% since 2010 and pledged that rape victims would get the justice and support they deserve, with a new investigatory model for police forces and prosecutors, as well as pre-recorded cross examination for victims in all Crown Courts.
However, this is not enough, and we can all agree that we must go further. At present, adult rape cases take an average of two years to complete in court. I am sure everybody in this debate agrees that this is not good enough. It can leave survivors feeling as if they are in limbo, and lead to their withdrawing from the process before the cases reach trial. Statistics have been given today as evidence of this.
In their manifesto, the Government promised to appoint legal advocates to provide free legal services and support to rape survivors across England and Wales by redirecting PCC grants for victims’ services. Yet it is deeply concerning that, to date, progress has been slow. They appear to have stalled on their promise to set up dozens of specialist rape courts to deal with the court backlogs. Can the Minister confirm that they will continue to build on the efforts made by the previous Government? What attempts have the Government made to use vacant rooms and buildings on Crown Court sites to fast-track rape cases, as pledged during the election campaign? Will the Minister confirm that fast-track rape cases are indeed a priority for the Government in their commitment to tackle violence against women and girls?
I would also like to support, at this stage, the important point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in relation to education. It would be good if the Minister was able, either today or in writing, to tell us of any progress that has been made in this.
My noble friend Lady Wyld ended her excellent contribution by saying that there is cross-party support for this. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, made the point that we are here to help. I think this is something we can work on together, not fall out over, and make life better for the people who suffer.
Let me set out the factors that have led us to this point. In 2019, charges and prosecutions for rape had fallen to an historic low, prompting the previous Government to carry out an end-to-end review of the criminal justice system’s response to adult rape offences. This review found that the system had, in fact, faltered from around 2016 onwards—a year that saw a sharp decline in rape prosecutions, coupled with a decline in convictions. The reasons for this drop are varied but well documented.
The first concerns systemic issues. When this Government took office, we inherited a justice system under intense pressure and a growing backlog of cases in the courts. The volume of outstanding cases in the Crown Court now stands at over 70,000—a record high. When the justice system is under this level of strain, everyone feels the impact; it is a sad fact that this includes victims, particularly victims of sexual offences. For many victims, the wait they might face is simply too much to bear. As it stands, around 55% of rape complainants, despite coming forward, eventually withdraw from the criminal justice process. Understandably, they want to focus on their own mental health and rebuilding their lives.
Rape cases also require specialist expertise; this point was made by both previous commissioners, who gave, if I may say so, some interesting ideas. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, talked about group police work as the way to tackle this issue; he compared it to terrorist offences and the like, and I found it an interesting idea. Of course, this is a resource issue. These resource issues include the challenge of having enough specialist barristers, both prosecuting and defending, willing to take on these highly sensitive and difficult cases.
For prosecution volumes to improve, victims must also have the confidence to come forward and report what has happened to them, knowing that they will be taken seriously and, crucially, be given the support they need. Sadly, this is not always the experience of rape victims. This means that improvements in training, culture and local policing practices must all come together in a seamless and consistent manner. Victims will have confidence in the system only if they see it working effectively and compassionately.
I have set out some of the systemic issues. Now let me briefly highlight the challenges particular to this category of offences. First, many rapes are committed by someone known to the victim—often a current or former partner. Estimates suggest that more than 40% of adult rape victims are, or have been, in a relationship with their attacker. This complicates the investigative process.
Secondly, it is widely acknowledged that sexual offences, in particular rape, are often under-reported. Many victims fear the stigma of speaking out. Others lack confidence in the criminal justice system itself, feeling as though they are not being listened to or taken seriously—and, indeed, that they are the ones under scrutiny, not the perpetrator. During an investigation, it is not unusual for the police to request a victim’s personal records. Noble Lords will know that these requests have, at times, gone too far, causing unnecessary upset to victims, compounding their trauma and causing them to drop out of their case altogether.
I have outlined some of the challenges; now let me set out some of the commitments that this Government have made to begin addressing them. First, we have committed to ensuring swifter justice for victims and reducing the wait times that contribute to so many withdrawing from the process. One of the most vital steps in addressing this is reducing the time it takes from a charge being laid to the actual trial; we are working with the judiciary on how we can best fast-track rape cases through the courts.
More broadly, we have taken decisive action to drive the outstanding case load down, such as funding extra sitting days, which will see courts sit for a total of 108,500 days this financial year—the highest number in almost a decade. We have also increased the sentencing powers of magistrates’ courts from six months to 12 months for a single triable either-way offence. We expect this to free up around 2,000 sitting days and allow judges to deal with the more—indeed, the most—serious cases.
However, if victims are going to see justice done more swiftly in this country, we cannot simply do more of the same. We must go further. It will take once-in-a-generation reform, which is why the Lord Chancellor has commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to carry out an independent review of the criminal courts. Sir Brian will consider the merits of longer-term reform, as well as how our courts can operate more efficiently. I am sure that noble Lords will await the review’s findings with interest.
The Government’s second commitment is that every victim of adult rape should have access to a free, independent legal adviser. Later this year, we will introduce new independent legal advisers, who will offer free legal advice to victims of adult rape at any point from report to trial. These advisers will help victims understand their rights, including in relation to the use of personal information, as well as offering clarity about the court process, timelines and what to expect. These advisers will not undermine the right to a fair trial or prevent evidence coming to light. They will simply help victims understand and, if needed, take steps to protect the rights that they already have.
Our third commitment is that specialist rape and sexual offences teams will be introduced into every police force, ensuring that the right capabilities are in place properly to investigate these offences. Victims must have a positive experience when dealing with the police, which will in turn increase reporting and deliver better outcomes for victims. We are working closely with policing partners to make this a reality.
Encouragingly, the volume of rape cases being reported to the police has followed a significant upward trend in recent years despite the prevalence of rape remaining flat, as measured by the Crime Survey for England and Wales. This means more brave victims feeling confident to report their offence to the police without increases in the number of incidents of rape.
Those are just three of our commitments. They will be underpinned by a new strategy to combat violence against women and girls, to be published later this year, which will help us transform how government, and the justice system as a whole, responds to these horrific crimes.
Let me emphasise again that rape is an abhorrent crime. It has no place in our society, and far too many survivors have suffered without seeing justice or receiving the support they so desperately need. A combination of factors, including strained court capacity and inconsistent resourcing, have contributed to the level of rape prosecutions we see today, but it is not enough simply to reel off the complexities. We must act, and that is what the Government are doing. We are under no illusion about the scale of the challenge before us, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for raising this issue for debate.
I shall now answer some of the specific questions asked by noble Lords. First, education is a cross-government endeavour that starts with prevention. My colleagues Ministers Davies-Jones and Phillips are leading on this issue, as are colleagues in the Department for Education. Relationship, sex and health education is now a statutory part of the curriculum, and within that, people are learning about domestic abuse and consent. So there is a cross-departmental approach to this important part of the solution to the problem.
Other noble Lords asked about attrition—women dropping out of the process. The answer to that is in the three specific promises I made: to support women through legal advice, to speed up the process, and to ensure that women understand the reality of the court process they will go through.
Other noble Lords asked about the experience in court. Trauma-informed training has already been delivered at Snaresbrook, Leeds and Newcastle Crown Courts, with over 400 professionals trained so far, including court staff, CPS staff and the police. In addition, witness waiting rooms and in-court technology have been upgraded in selected courts, and Section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act also addresses the way victims are treated as they go through these types of cases.
I might say that I have dealt with these matters myself. Very unusually, I have dealt with a youth rape. Magistrates would not normally deal with rape, but on appeals in the youth court a magistrate would sit as a winger. I dealt with one at Harrow Crown Court, and I thought it was handled as well as it possibly could be. Interestingly—I will close on this because I am being looked at by my Whip—the young woman concerned chose to be in the courtroom while the case was proceeding because she wanted to be part of the whole process. The technology was available for it to be done in a different way, but that was her choice, and I thought it was a very powerful one on her part.
If I have not answered noble Lords’ questions, I will write to them.