Rape is an appalling crime which devastates the lives of its victims, yet it is one of the most difficult crimes to prosecute. Only around 6 per cent of rape allegations reported to the police result in a conviction. Of rape cases proceeding to trial, only around 40 per cent result in a conviction, as against nearly 80 per cent for crimes across the board. Clearly, the criminal justice system is failing most victims of rape. How can we change this?

Various figures need to be borne in mind. The conviction rate in rape cases has fallen – from 33 per cent in 1977 to today’s level. This is the mainly due to a dramatic increase in the number of allegations. The absolute number of convictions is also falling, albeit only slightly. Increased allegations indicate a much greater willingness to report what was previously a hidden crime, which is welcome; the problem remains in convicting the offender.

Over the past fifteen years, a succession of reforms, both legal and practical, have been introduced in an attempt to overcome the obstacles to successful prosecution. The requirement for corroboration was removed. The circumstances in which the complainant could be cross-examined about her sexual history were restricted. The right of the accused to cross examine the complainant in person was withdrawn. In 2003, the Sexual Offences Act sought to tighten the law on consent. However, these changes have not always been clear or consistently applied. In November 2005 a rape trial collapsed in which the 21-year old complainant was so drunk at the time of the incident that she was unconscious. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 provides that a person must be capable of giving free consent to sex, a requirement inconsistent with unconsciousness. The jury were not given the opportunity to decide whether the complainant’s level of intoxication was such that she was not capable of consenting. Misapplication of the law compounds the problem, and needs to be addressed by better training for prosecutors.

There is abundant evidence that practical measures like specialist police and medical teams make a big difference. Rape prosecutions are subject to a shameful postcode lottery, with huge geographical variations in conviction rates: as much as fifteen times from one part of the country to another. St Mary’s sexual assault referral centre in Manchester is an example of excellence but one of far too few nationwide. The quality of medical investigation of rape allegations in some areas can be extremely poor. Examinations are often performed by inexperienced and underqualified doctors.

Forensic evidence is not always properly preserved or protected from contamination. These problems are potentially disastrous – given need to prove allegations beyond reasonable doubt, anything which enables the defendant to cast the smallest doubt on the prosecution case may be enough to secure an acquittal. The government’s current plans to ensure that all communities have facilities like St Mary’s are much overdue. Clearly, these plans will take time to bear fruit.

Legal and practical reforms, underpinned by better funding, are essential. Ultimately, however, the key to justice for victims of rape may be changes in social attitudes. Prosecutors frequently shy away from pressing cases to trial because they are only too well aware that juries’ decisions are influenced by unconscious assumptions. A 2005 survey by Amnesty International reported that over 30 per cent of people think that a woman who is raped is partly to blame if she is drunk. Such attitudes pervade those working in the criminal justice system, and juries. To increase conviction rates, we need reforms and money; but most of all we need a broader campaign to combat deeply rooted prejudices. This will take much longer, but it’s essential if we’re going to secure justice for rape victims.