Court responses to rape and sexual assault have been repeatedly criticized in England and Wales (Brown et al., 2010). In particular, research has identified prevalent stereotypes about rape in both the criminal justice system and wider society, with these rape myths often being used as the predominant explanation for inadequate victim/survivor treatment (see Temkin and Krahé, 2008). The existing literature, though, tends to rely on interviews or is outdated by policy, so the present research uses court observations to explore what is actually happening in adult rape and sexual assault trials. The findings show that rape myths are still routinely used at trial, but that they are sometimes resisted using judicial directions or prosecution comments. In addition, the research highlights how rape myths are kept ‘relevant’ to trial through a focus on inconsistencies, a dichotomy of wholly truthful/untruthful witnesses, and conceptualisations of ‘rational’ behaviour as being the ‘normal’ way to act. These findings provide a new understanding of rape myths and have implications for policy; in particular, that while training legal professionals is helpful, it cannot be expected to fully address the use of rape myths.

Despite years of policy reform in England and Wales, court responses to sexual violence victims remain inadequate. Much of the literature relies on interviews, is outdated by policy or ignores underlying assumptions. This study therefore observed rape and sexual assault trials, identifying underlying assumptions in the data using critical discourse analysis. The main emergent themes were: routine delays, the notion of 'rational' behaviour, extreme interpretations of 'beyond reasonable doubt' and 'burden of proof', and winning as priority. These highlight the need to move beyond focusing purely on short-term change and begin addressing the fundamental inadequacies of court responses to sexual violence victims.The Criminal Justice System (CJS) in England and Wales is persistently critiqued for poor responses to rape and, despite years of policy reform, courts resist change (Brown, Hovarth, Kelly and Westmarland, 2010). Even with a plethora of good quality research on these issues, several gaps in the literature remain. For example, most studies use interviews with victims or legal personnel; but court observations, which explore actions rather than stated attitudes, are rare. In addition, the focus tends to be on identifying problematic practices rather than their underlying causes; the research that does attempt to do this is now outdated by important policy changes (see Ellison, 2001). This study therefore uses observations to explore judges and barristers treatment of rape, seeking to understand such treatment in relation to the underlying context of the English and Welsh CJS. Existing literature, policy and practice Common identified problemsResearch highlights two main problems faced by rape victims in England and Wales: high attrition rates i and inadequate treatment. Rape conviction rates have been identified as low, for

The British state’s mechanism for compensating victim-survivors of sexual offences has been critiqued as retraumatising. However, a recent review preliminarily rejected calls to loosen the eligibility rules, stating that the current criteria reflect public attitudes. This article outlines the first empirical study of public opinion on the UK Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (CICS), drawing on data from over 2,000 survey participants. The findings show ambivalence among members of the public, but also reveal the current rules are not strongly supported and are in some cases highly unpopular. The article then examines some difficulties with relying on public opinion for criminal justice reform, and ultimately argues that there are stronger justifications for reforming the CICS than popularity with the public. Specifically, loosening the eligibility criteria would create more legitimate policy through the protection of core societal values such as fairness and dignity.<br /><br />Key Messages<br /><ul><li>Contrary to the British Ministry of Justice’s rhetoric, there is not strong public support for the current eligibility rules on the UK Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (CICS) for sexual offence victim-survivors.</li><br /><li>Women and younger people are more critical of the current CICS eligibility rules, but social grade did not impact public opinions.</li><br /><li>Relying on public opinion for CICS reform is problematic, as widening the eligibility is justifiable regardless of lay popularity.</li></ul>

English and Welsh responses to rape have long been critically examined, leading to attempted improvements in the criminal justice system. Despite this, little attention has been paid to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (CICS) and the difficulties applying it to rape. To begin addressing this gap, researchers interviewed three, and qualitatively surveyed 22, Independent Sexual Violence Advisors. The findings suggest that CICS may not only reinforce rape myths and disadvantage vulnerable survivors, but is also a source of validation and contributes to survivor justice. The study, while exploratory, therefore, highlights the need for further discussion about rape survivor compensation.

No abstract