Plans to let judges instruct juries to drop preconceived notions about rape receive backing

Rape Crisis Scotland said trials are affected by ideas such as how soon a rape should be reported or whether a woman resisted. A bill is currently before MSPs that would give judges the power to direct the jury on these issues.

Sand Brindley, national co-ordinator or Rape Crisis Scotland claimed the number of “not proven” verdicts was disproportionately high.

Ms Brindley, who is speaking to Holyrood’s Justice Committee today, said: “Study after study shows a significant proportion of people think a woman is responsible for rape.”

She added: “Jury members may hold their own views about what they would do if they were attacked, in relation to fighting back, and may judge a complainer’s behaviour in light of this.

“It is unreasonable to expect jury members to know that freezing and being unable to fight back is a very common reaction to a trauma such as rape.

“If the justice system is about a search for truth, then we need to make sure that jury members are equipped with factual information they may need to help them come to the right decision, and that this decision making is not marred by erroneous preconceptions about behaviour.”

Studies cited by Ms Brindley indicated 23 per cent of people thought a woman can be partly responsible if she was drunk, while 17 per cent thought wearing revealing clothing could also make her partly responsible. Finally, 15 per cent said flirting could also contribute to rape.

Over half of those accused of rape in 2013/14 walked free.

In 214 cases that year 37 per cent were found guilty while 20 per cent were not proven.

The police also gave their support to the plans.

Malcolm Graham, assistant chief constable of Police Scotland, said there are a high number of cases where the jury should be given “good reasons” why the rape was not immediately reported or why a woman failed to resist.

He said: “The perception of the ‘stranger’ type rape being the most common crime type or an assumption that victims will ‘fight’ remain common myths.

“We believe jury direction to this effect would assist outcomes not being unduly influenced by personal views.”