Rape: Prosecutions

Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington (CB)]

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.

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.

Assisted Dying Bill [HL]

Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington Excerpts

Friday 18th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington (CB)]

My Lords, I too would like to draw attention to the amount of correspondence that I have received, as well as the number of telephone calls and conversations in the street. There is no doubt whatever that this is one of the major issues of our time, so I too commend those who brought this Bill in front of the House. I am in general agreement on the issue of assisted dying if it preserves dignity in death and reduces pain and suffering—the choice of a so-called good death. However, there have to be proper safeguards, safeguards which have to be credible and tested.

There is undoubtedly confusion about what this Bill is about, some of which has been addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Some 12 months ago, my family and I had to make a difficult decision about a very close loved one, as to whether she should be resuscitated. We decided against. In conversations with my family and others, some have said to me that this Bill addresses those issues and is similar in that respect. I do not believe that it is, but we have to bear that in mind.

What is certain is that there needs to be certainty in the law. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, the previous DPP, has basically plugged the gap. He did a superb job in his directions as the DPP, leaving the police, as my noble friend Lord Blair of Boughton illustrated, with some difficult decisions in sudden and suspicious deaths. As a junior and then a senior detective I went to hundreds of sudden and suspicious deaths, and it was one of the more difficult things that I had to judge and decide on. We in this place should be providing a certainty in law that gives those at the very front line of these issues—the police officers who go to these instances and are rightly called on to investigate—a certainty in how to deal with them. I believe that that is not too much to ask for.

Although I support the Bill in general, I have concerns about a prediction of six months of life. I have seen many cases, and heard noble Lords relate many cases, that demonstrate the uncertainties surrounding such predictions. I have massive admiration for the medical profession, but it is a nonsense that people can say that someone will definitely die within six months. That needs to be addressed.

I worry about the elderly being pressurised. I worry about the question of the agreement of two doctors being a sufficient safeguard. The Abortion Act and what has happened since is in itself evidence that that is not good enough. I firmly believe that there should be some judicial safeguards to what we do. But the Bill must go forward. It must go to Committee. It must be discussed. We have been given the responsibility of delivering answers to safeguard the dignity of the vulnerable and the dying. To do nothing is not an option.