This series was inspired by the reaction of the judiciary to proposals in 2006 to reform certain aspects of the law relating to rape trials.

The 2006 reform proposals
My first post was written in outraged response to the article “Judges try to block rape reforms” (January 2007). I then went on to consider these reform proposals in detail in my next post, Convicting Rapists and Protecting Victims – Justice for Victims of Rape, as well as commenting further on the judicial response to them.

Sexual History: a judge’s eye view
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, References
A review in four parts of the way that judges have dealt with the problem of defendants impugning rape complainants by bringing their past sexual behaviour into the case – includes judicial interpretation of legislation trying to control this behaviour by defendants. Covers the period from 1975 up to the end of 2006.

Policemen who rape
Analysis of an English legal decision as to whether the police authorities are responsible for police officers who use their office and uniform to commit rape.
(See also: similar case in the United States in which the police force paid a police sexual assault victim, out of court, $400,000.)

False allegations
Part 1 – Katie Davis’ story, and idiotic statistics.
Part 2 – Sally Henderson’s story, and an analysis of Eugene Kanin’s 41%.
Part 3 – More analysis of studies – McDowell (27% / 60%) and “Gap or Chasm?” (3%)
Part 4 – Discussion of the FBI statistic that 8% of rape reports are “unfounded”.

Sentencing for sexual offences
Item #1 – Causing or inciting prostitution of a woman with an IQ of 52 – 12 months, suspended
Item #2 – Three offences of indecency with young boys – 11 years imprisonment
Item #3 – Sexual touching with a 14-year old boy – 15 months imprisonment
Item #4 – Rape of a 10-year-old girl – 18 months conditional discharge

A little bit of light relief:
Safeguarding Liberty and Justice Since 1245

*******************

And finally… if you liked that, you’ll like this:

The Story of a Refugee – analysis of a House of Lords decision about an asylum claim by a young woman escaping from the threat of FGM in Sierra Leone.