Victim-blaming: It's not just for civilians

So, the latest outcry over the blaming of rape victims for their abuse has, rightly, focused on Judge Nigel Peters' decision to give a man who sexually abused a 13 year-old girl a suspended sentence on the grounds that the victim was 'sexually predatory'.

 

Where to start despairing over this story is anyone's guess, as there are so many aspects of the story that make you want to drop your forehead onto your desk with considerable force. How about the fact that 'The girl was accused in court of "egging her abuser on" and was described as "looking older" than her thirteen years, something the judge said he would consider in Wilson’s favour"?  Or the fact that the abuser's barrister said, in his defence “There was sexual activity but it was not of Mr Wilson's doing. You might say it was forced upon him despite being older and stronger than her”?

 

I mean, just take a minute to read that last quote. The sexual activity was not of the abuser's doing. It was forced upon him. Would we ever read about another crime being defended in such an audacious, logically fallacious, victim-blaming fashion? The little old lady forced her handbag on the mugger. The victim forced his Vauxhall Omega on the car thief. The perpetrator of grievous bodily harm may have shoved a broken bottle in his victim's face, but it was not of his doing. How can we still listen to this shit? And how in God's name can anyone get away with standing up in court and still SAYING THIS SHIT?!

 

Well, maybe they haven't totally gotten away with it. Barrister Robert Colover has been barred from taking on sexual offence cases while the Director of Public Prosecutions conducts an investigation into the case and Colover's conduct. Quite right, but talk about shutting the stable door after the sex offender has walked free. Furthermore, how much can we really lay the blame at the feet of a barrister - whose job it is to defend his client by whatever legal means he can, which sadly still includes completely besmirching the victim's reputation - when he employed tactics that he thought would work in his client's favour, and was proved right by the supposedly neutral paragon of justice, the judge himself?

 

Judge Nigel Peters made the utterly contradictory statement that he would take the victim's allegedly deceptive appearance and the fact she was ''predatory" and "egging you on" into account when sentencing, then said “That is no defence when dealing with children but I am prepared to impose a suspension.”  Uh, sure. So if it's no defence, WHY MENTION IT? And why give a sentence that implies you think it surely IS a defence, a defence strong enough to put a child abuser back on the streets?

 

As a result of the objections to his words and sentencing, Judge Peters increased the suspended sentence from 8 months to 12 months, which seems only to add insult to injury. However, the DPP is conducting a separate review and so the sentence may yet change again - although in terms of exposing our legal system as the kind of misogynistic hellhole that we foolishly thought might have improved since Helena Kennedy wrote about the horrendous victim-blaming she witnessed during her time as a QC in the 80s and 90s, the damage is done.

 

All that said, I'm glad that there at least is an outcry, and that it's not just the public objecting, but key members of the British legal system too. Keir Starmer, who has also been instrumental in exposing the pitifully low rape conviction rate and calling for major improvements in the way rape complaints are handled, has not wasted time in addressing this utterly f-ed up case. Another judge, when sentencing a child abuser a few days later, made a point of saying that the responsibility for abuse always lies with the adult, regardless of the child's behaviour. I'm glad to see this, because cases like these don't always get this degree of attention.

 

I spent a great deal of time and energy during the first months of 2013 trying to get people similarly outraged about Judge Niclas Parry's comments that a rape victim 'let herself down badly' by drinking and taking drugs on the night of her attack. It was a real slog to a) spread word about the petition and get people to sign, and b) get a response from the Judge in the face of the constant obfuscation that the people surrounding him practised.

 

After two utterly unhelpful responses from the listing manager of Mold Crown Court, I lodged a complaint with the Office for Judicial Complaints. I received an equally unhelpful response from the OJC, which said:

"I have considered the issues raised in your complaint and I conclude that they relate to HHJ Parry own views and opinion of the people before him. This does not amount to misconduct. It is for this reason that I cannot take your complaint any further. "

 

In light of the recent focus on Nigel Peters, I do wonder how the OJC can say that judges using the platform of a courtroom to propagate their victim-blaming opinions does not amount to misconduct. While I recognise that the two cases are very different, both in terms of offence and outcome (Judge Parry did rightly impose a 6 year sentence on the rapist in this case), the pitiful sentence given to Neil Wilson doesn't seem to be the main issue here. The objection is, and to my mind rightly so, the victim-blaming words of barrister Robert Colover and the way in which Judge Nigel Peters seemed to agree with, reinforce, and ultimately free the abuser of a 13 year-old girl based on the view that a molested child can in any way be 'asking for it'.

 

So why are Peters and Colover being put under the microscope while Parry got away with it? If we are really going to change anything about the utterly rotten state of British justice when it comes to its treatment of rape victims, why aren't we taking ALL the misogynistic lawyers and judges to task - and making sure they can never insult victims like this again? Words have power. They create culture, they spread lies, they perpetuate myths. So long as people continue to believe raped women 'let themselves down badly' and 13 year-old girls 'force' adult men to fuck them - and the comments page of any news story about the latter will reveal that terrifyingly, too many people DO believe this - we can't deny that we need to start addressing not just what judges do, but what they say too.

 

Update on the petition asking Judge Niclas Parry to retract his victim-blaming comments

--- Addition 06.02.2013 - In response to Judge Parry's refusal to apologise or even acknowledge that his comments were wrong and offensive, I have emailed the Office for Judicial Complaints to lodge a complaint about his conduct. ---

As you may or may not be aware, last month I started a petition in response to this news story. In the petition, I asked Judge Niclas Parry to retract and apologise for his comments to a rape victim that she had 'let herself down badly'. Here's the text of the email I sent to Judge Parry, drawing his attention to the petition:

"I am writing to ask you to publicly apologise for, and retract your comments to the rape victim of Anthony Parry that she 'let herself down badly' (reported December 14 2012, BBC News). To focus on the behaviour of the victim whilst sentencing a guilty rapist sends out the message that rape is partially the victim's fault. This is particularly concerning in light of the recent Home Office report which found that rape conviction rates remain pitifully low, and that many victims are afraid to report rape because they fear them will be blamed.

Disbelieving or victim-blaming attitues from members of the criminal justice system have regularly been cited as a factor in discouraging rape victims from coming forward, so it is particularly disappointing that an influential figure such as yourself felt the need to imply that women are to blame for being raped if they have been drinking. This will only contribute to a culture where victims remain afraid to come forward and rapists continue to go unpunished.

Your words also go directly against one of the main premises of the Sexual Offences Bill 2003, as described in the Stern Report 2010 - namely that "sex without consent is always rape and all other factors about a person making a complaint of rape are irrelevant to that central fact". (The Stern Review 2010, Page 14)
Apologise for and retract your victim-blaming comments to this woman, and instead use your power as a member of the judiciary to send out an unequivocal message that rape is always 100% the rapist's fault.Sincerely etc"

After having to chase Mold Crown Court twice to obtain a response from Judge Parry, I received the following reply on Jan 29 from the court Listing Manager Jane Williams.

"His Honour Judge Parry would wish to thank you for your message and for the very valid points that you raise regarding the trying of cases such as these.

He would also wish to explain why this is a case where the need for any apology would not arise but to explain also that that is only due to the circumstances of the particular case in question.

The reference to the Complainant was in face specifically made by His Honour because the Complainant herself had stated that she somehow feared that her behaviour might be seen as contributory and to emphasise to her and everyone else that, in fact, in his Honour's view, quite the contrary was true and that in fact the Complainant's condition was actually an aggravating feature which the Judge considered made the offence even worse and so merited a higher sentence.

For your information only, and hopefully to assist further, the Judge was in fact sent a letter from the Complainant's family thanking him personally for the manner in which he had dealt with the Complainant who had felt supported by him, and because of that, more able to pursue her complaint. The Judge was also thanked for what was considered by them to be an appropriate sentence.

Regards etc"

I responded the same day:

"Thank you for replying on behalf of His Honour Judge Parry.

I am somewhat confused by His Honour's explanation for the comments he made. I do not understand how, by saying the Complainant had 'let herself down badly', His Honour was reassuring the Complainant that her behaviour was not a contributing factor to being raped. He is quoted as saying (to the accused Anthony Parry) 'She consumed far too much alcohol and took drugs but she also had the misfortune of meeting you.' His Honour's use of the word 'also' implies that it was both the fact the Complainant had been drinking, and the fact she met Anthony Parry, which led to her being raped. When of course it was only the latter, and to publicly imply otherwise does all rape victims a massive disservice.

If I have misunderstood or missed out a vital part of the court transcript I would appreciate clarification, but nowhere in Judge Parry's remarks can I find the implication he is reassuring the victim that her behaviour was not partly to blame - in fact, I find the complete opposite.

 While I appreciate that the Complainant may have found Judge Parry supportive and thanked him for the way he dealt with the case, this does not detract from the fact he made a public statement which focused on the victim's (legally irrelevant) behaviour, implied that the woman had failed herself in some way, and potentially deterred future rape victims from coming forward.

Therefore, I would appreciate further clarification on why His Honour does not think his comments merit an apology."

On 30th Jan I received this reply:

"His Honour has received your reply. He has provided the explanation and you will appreciate that he would not normally engage in correspondence regarding individual cases. He has done so on this occasion in an attempt to assist in the understanding of the administration of justice. You will no doubt ensure that all with whom you say you shared your views will be afforded the curtesy of being provided with the full picture.

The only additional assistance His Honour feels he can offer relates you your comment that a complainant's behaviour is legally irrelevant. In fact it is His Honour's view that this is not correct, it can be highly legally relevant because it can amount to an aggravating feature in a case which can increase a sentence as was the case in this particular example".

I replied:

"Thank you for your response. I will certainly be sharing His Honour's views with the 600+ people who signed the petition. However, I remain unconvinced by his explanation. Nowhere in his comments does His Honour say that the victim's drunkenness was an aggravating factor in him deciding to pass a higher sentence. If that were the case, he might have said something along the lines of, 'The victim had drunk alcohol and took drugs. I consider Anthony Parry's decision to take advantage of her state an aggravating factor therefore I am passing a higher sentence'. Instead he said '[The victim] let herself down badly. She drank far too much alcohol and took drugs. However, she also had the misfortune of meeting you', which I read as a pejorative and irrelevant reference to the victim's behaviour.

Unless His Honour can clarify how his comments were intended to support, rather than criticise, the victim, I will be continuing with the petition."

So far, I haven't had a response but I can't say I'm optimistic about what it will contain if I do get one. As far as I can see, Judge Parry is basically trying to say his comments meant the exact opposite of what they appeared to mean, and also trying to use the fact that the victim thanked him for his support as evidence that he is not a victim-blamer. I'm not buying it.

However, I'm not sure how to press forward with this in a constructive way. I can keep gathering signatures, but if the response will merely be the same kind of stonewalling, is this the best way of addressing this issue, or should I try another tack?

I'd really appreciate any feedback or suggestions.

Latest Posts By Me

A review of Hillary Jordan's excellent When She Woke - a feminist dystopian novel envisioning the US if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned - for Bitch.

A piece for Women's Views on News about North Wales judge Niclas Parry, who told a rape victim she 'let herself down badly' - even as he was sentencing her GUILTY attacker.