Rape prosecution review failed to engage with victims, say survivor groups | Rape and sexual assault
A government-led review into the collapse of rape prosecutions in England and Wales has failed to “meaningfully engage” with rape survivors, despite assurances from a minister that they had been consulted, according to groups representing victims.
Earlier this week the policing minister, Kit Malthouse, told MPs that “of course” survivors had been consulted in response to a question about victim engagement during the review. The debate in parliament was prompted by the Guardian’s revelation on Monday that fewer than one in 60 rape cases recorded by the police last year in England and Wales resulted in a suspect being charged in 2020.
But the Guardian has seen a letter, sent in March this year, which expresses the dismay of key charities at the review’s “reluctance” to speak directly to survivors.
The letter from groups including Rape Crisis, the End Violence Against Women coalition (Evaw), Imkaan and Women’s Aid in England and Wales was sent two years after the review was launched, and sought assurances that survivors “experiences are central to, rather than wholly excluded from, the review”.
The groups said they had raised the issue of “meaningfully engaging with victims and survivors” at every stakeholder meeting, writing “so at this juncture of the review, we feel compelled to share our disappointment at the reluctance to include what should be a fundamental aspect of any review of this nature”.
Andrea Simon, director of Evaw, said it was “a great disservice to the review that no meaningful engagement with survivors has informed” it.
She said: “How can you hope to transform the system’s response to rape without hearing directly from women who have been harmed by a total collapse in rape prosecutions.”
Malthouse told parliament on Tuesday that the review had consulted survivors and relevant organisations formed part of its “engagement panel”. He added that Emily Hunt, a campaigner and survivor of sexual assault, had been appointed as an expert adviser.
But sources told the Guardian that the full stakeholder reference group, which has about 20 voluntary-sector members, has met six times, for one hour over the past two years. A parliamentary question from September last year revealed the group had, at that point, met three times. Other meetings had been held separately with different members of the group, but one key member of the group said “weeks and months went by where we heard nothing”. Hunt had been employed as an adviser only late last year, said one source – more than a year and a half after the launch of the review.
In October, 18 months after the review was launched, the victims’ commissioner for England and Wales published a survey of 500 survivors, which is expected to inform the review. But sources said there had been no specifically commissioned survey of rape victims by the review, and no roundtable meetings held directly with survivors.
A government spokesperson said direct research with victims was conducted by specially trained staff or it could be retraumatising; the review had instead used research conducted by victims’ organisations.
“We have put victims at the heart of this review throughout,” said the spokesperson. “Their views and experiences, shared by survivors’ groups and experts through our regular consultation and research work, have played a fundamental role in shaping our thinking.”
Claire Waxman, London’s victims’ commissioner, said she was “concerned that not nearly enough has been done to engage and work with rape victims”, adding “the views and experiences of victims must be at the centre of efforts to turn the tide on the record low we are seeing in rape charges and convictions”.
Katie Russell, spokesperson for Rape Crisis England and Wales, said the charity had “consistently and repeatedly” expressed its concern about “the lack of meaningful engagement with or consultation of victims and survivors themselves”. She added: “Even as members of the specialist stakeholder group, we have felt communication around the review has been infrequent and information-sharing minimal at best.”