Rape victims can challenge CPS if cases dropped under pilot scheme
Victims of rape and serious sexual assault who face their cases being dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service will be given the right to request a review under a government pilot.
The six-month scheme, which will launch on Friday in the West Midlands, will give victims the right to ask for their case to be reviewed by a different prosecutor if the CPS indicates it intends to offer no evidence.
The reform is backed by the attorney general and solicitor general and forms part of the government's pledge to halve violence against women and girls.
Campaigners have long called for the change. Criminal cases can be stopped at any point if a prosecutor decides there is no longer a realistic prospect of conviction, but this reform strengthens the right of victims to challenge the decision.
Though a right to review already exists, it cannot be exercised when the case has been stopped in court. Under the terms of the pilot, for the first time victims of rape or serious sexual abuse will be offered the right to request a review by a different prosecutor before their case is dropped. If that prosecutor determines there is enough evidence, the case will continue.
If the trial is successful in the West Midlands, ministers could extend it across England and Wales.
Jade Blue McCrossen-Nethercott, a justice reform campaigner who won compensation from the CPS after her rape case was dropped amid claims she could have had an episode of 'sexsomnia', said the pilot was 'a hugely important step in the right direction'.
'After my own case was closed due to a controversial 'sexsomnia' defence, I used the victims' right to review – only to be told that, despite the CPS admitting a mistake, it was too late to reopen the case because they'd already offered no evidence in court. That experience was devastating,' she said.
'I've spent nearly three years campaigning behind the scenes for this exact change: for victims to have the opportunity to request a second review before a case is shut down.'
She added that, despite its failure in her case, the CPS had shown a willingness to reflect and change and that her 'faith in the agencies that once failed me is slowly being restored'.
Ministers hope the change will help build trust in the justice system, which has been eroded by lengthy waiting times. In latest quarterly crime data released by the Ministry of Justice running to December 2024, rape and sexual offences had reached a record high in the crown court's backlog.
The number of sexual offences waiting to go to the crown court was 11,981, up by 41% in two years. There were 3,489 adult rape cases waiting to go to trial, an increase of 70% in two years.
According to figures published by Rape Crisis, fewer than three in 100 rapes recorded by police in 2024 resulted in someone being charged that same year. Adult rape cases take an average of two years to complete in court, with many taking far longer.
The pilot was welcomed by the End Violence Against Women Coalition and Centre for Women's Justice. Helen Newlove, the victims' commissioner for England and Wales, said it was 'a first step toward ending a manifestly unfair practice that denied victims a voice and robbed them of justice'.
Lucy Rigby, the solicitor general, said: 'This government is treating violence against women and girls with the seriousness it deserves. Part of that is about empowering victims and improving their experience of the criminal justice system.'
Siobhan Blake, CPS lead for rape and chief crown prosecutor of CPS West Midlands, said: 'We know for rape victims, the prospect of their case being stopped can be absolutely devastating. Although they can request a review of our decision-making now, if we have already stopped the case in court, there is nothing that can be done to reactivate the case if that review comes to a different conclusion. In those circumstances we offer an apology, but appreciate that for a victim an apology rarely goes far enough or feels like a just outcome.
'This pilot offers greater reassurance for victims. It means that they will be alerted to the prospect of their case being stopped earlier, so that they can ask for a review by a different prosecutor. If the original decision is reversed, then the case will continue but even if it can't we hope that victims will have more confidence in the process and the earlier scrutiny of our decision-making.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
an hour ago
- Times
MPs treated HS2 as a test of virility. No wonder it's been a flop
L ast week brought shocking news. HS2, the nation's flagship infrastructure project, will be further delayed. A damning report found that the project has been comprehensively mismanaged, and needs to be completely reset to stop costs ballooning further. The secretary of state blasted the appalling failures to date, but promised that Whitehall would now finally get a grip. Well, I say shocking news. At this point such stories are as traditional a part of the news calendar as the Boat Race. HS2 has become the fiasco of fiascos, the disaster of disasters, a painfully on-the-nose metaphor for a country that can't get anything built, or anything done. Yet it might all have been so different. In 2005 Alistair Darling commissioned Sir Rod Eddington, former head of British Airways, to review the transport network. Eddington argued for expanding our big international gateways, such as Heathrow and the container ports; upgrading the roads, by introducing pay-as-you-go pricing; fixing our godawful planning system; and tackling the worst pinch points, not least the commuter routes into the big cities. But he warned that many of the proposals for high-speed rail were solutions looking for a problem — boys wanting to play with toys.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Naga Munchetty tells how she has always 'hated seeing people bullied' - after she too faced complaint amid probes into BBC Breakfast culture
Naga Munchetty has said she 'hated' to see people bullied at school after it was revealed she allegedly bullied a junior staffer on BBC Breakfast last year. In an interview days before the allegations against her resurfaced, the presenter, 50, had said she battled against rude comments made about her appearance and talent. The TV and radio host from south London said: 'I was no angel but I hated seeing people bullied. 'I remember there were a couple of kids in school who were bullied and I just hated it. 'So I'd always kind of be that person who would speak to everyone.' Speaking on the Walking The Dog With Emily Dean podcast she explained that she confronts people that upset her at work. The presenter, who is already at the centre of BBC Breakfast 's toxicity row, was reportedly spoken to by bosses over a sex jibe she made while off-air at BBC Radio 5 Live. This comes as BBC Breakfast finds itself at the centre of a bullying and misconduct probe, with editor Richard Frediani taking an extended period of leave after an internal review of the allegations was opened into the show. According to The Sun, Naga used a slang term for a sex act during an off-air break. In an interview days before the allegations against her resurfaced, the presenter, 50, had said she battled against rude comments made about her appearance and talent The alleged remark in 2022 was said to have stunned the studio and led to Naga being spoken to by bosses. It was then reported that on BBC Breakfast last year, Naga was spoken to over alleged bullying of a woman. The BBC are now reportedly facing questions over whether there are 'double standards'. It comes as it was also reported that BBC Breakfast's editor Richard has taken an extended period of leave, after an internal review of bullying and misconduct allegations was opened into the show. It was previously claimed that the show's staff are feeling increasingly 'uneasy' around Frediani, with the former Head of ITV News accused of 'shaking' a female editor while working on the show. The Sun claimed that Richard has stepped back from the show, and while he had already taken time off to go on holiday, has mutually agreed to extend his break. Sources are also claiming that BBC bosses have held a series of meetings on how to handle the developing crisis. In an internal email obtained by the publication, John McAndrew, Director of Live and Daily News, thanked staff for their 'positivity' during this 'stressful time' - and informed them of Richard's decision. A source added: 'Fredi was already taking a break because obviously the allegations against him have been pretty damning, and he needed time to reflect. 'He's devastated by some of the claims and has also had a lot of behind the scenes support from colleagues, many of whom think he's a brilliant boss. 'BBC executives have ensured duty of care measures and he is still in touch with a few of the team. Right now, it's imperative that the BBC gets its house in order and ensures everyone is happy.' When contacted by MailOnline, a BBC representative said: 'While we do not comment on individual cases, we take all complaints about conduct at work extremely seriously and will not tolerate behaviour that is not in line with our values. 'We have robust processes in place and would encourage any staff with concerns to raise them directly with us so they can be addressed.'
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Fast-track suicide if you pay extra, discount deals for couples and you don't even have to be terminally ill: Inside Germany's morally queasy approach to assisted dying where business is booming for the pedlars of euthanasia
Last week, the UK's highest elected officials ruled on the most existential of questions: how we choose to die. At its third reading, the Assisted Dying Bill passed the Commons by a slim majority of 23 votes, and now its fate lies with the Lords, where it faces a bumpy ride before it becomes law. The upper chamber, for instance, will examine if a three-person panel of professionals (from law, psychiatry and social work) offers greater safety and oversight in approving a patient's application to die than a High Court judge, as was originally proposed. Peers will have at their disposal the grim cost-benefit analysis to the NHS in accelerating the deaths of the terminally ill, released last month under the cover of the local election results. According to the report, as many as 1,300 people are expected to apply to die in the first year, saving as much as £10million in medical bills. But can the health service cope with this demand, especially as NHS staff will be offered an opt-out from the ugly business of state-sponsored suicide? No doubt private health providers are already bending the ears of peers for a slice of the death industry pie. It would be tempting to allow private enterprise to take some of the strain, but I urge the Lords to look at how business seized the opportunity with morally queasy gusto in my native land, Germany, where some firms offer a 'fast track' service for people who can pay more and even special discounts to couples wishing to hasten their demise. Pictured: Pedestrians walk past the posters promoting the Assisted Dying bill at Westminster Underground station In Germany, anyone 18 or over can lawfully commit suicide with the help of a third party. Yes, anyone. There is no requirement for the person to be six months from death, nor is there any specification over having a life-limiting or debilitating illness (as in the UK Bill). A perfectly healthy university student can seek help to kill themselves for no better reason than they are fed up with life. Hannelore Kring, 83, is typical of Germany's liberal approach to assisted suicide. A recording of her death featured in a podcast by news broadcaster WDR and it is a spine-chilling reminder of how relaxed my countrymen are about dying. At an undertaker's, Frau Kring is accompanied by two 'death helpers' – a nurse and retired teacher – and sounds relieved her life will end in a matter of minutes. Dressed in black and with make-up, as if attending a party, she suggests a dance with the nurse. Indeed, she is not ill, she is as healthy as anyone in their 80s. She has run a second-hand men's boutique in Hamburg but feels life's no longer worth living. She's lonely, all her friends have died and the state of the world depresses her. The helpers ask if she really wants to go through with it. 'Absolutely!' she replies enthusiastically. The nurse hooks her up to an infusion of a lethal dose of narcotics – a 'suicide cocktail'. She merely has to turn a valve, letting the toxic chemicals enter her bloodstream, putting her to sleep for ever. It's important she takes the final step herself, otherwise the helpers could be charged with manslaughter. Assisted suicides like this have been fully legal in Germany since 2020, although legislation has been a generation in the making. After the Second World War the subject was largely taboo, in no small part due to revulsion at the Nazis' Aktion T4 programme, which entailed the 'mercy killing' of 300,000 disabled people. By the 1970s and 1980s, a push for more patient autonomy led to court decisions in 1984 and 1990 that ensured suffering, bed-ridden people had the right to stop treatments that prolonged their lives. With the 2009 Patient Directive Law, people could include such instructions in a living will if they became incapacitated. This gave legal protections to doctors offering assisted suicide. But then the public grew uneasy at what seemed a creeping commercialisation of the right to die. Healthcare is not free at the point of use in Germany, so the nation is more comfortable than the UK with private provision within the system. But only up to a point. Many were appalled in 2014 when a Berlin urologist Uwe-Christian Arnold revealed he had helped 'several hundred people' take their lives since the late 1990s for fees of up to €10,000. Christian groups accused him of undermining the sanctity of life. The German Medical Association threatened him with a €50,000 fine, saying doctors should prolong life, not give their patients lethal poisons. Arnold took them to court over the fine and won. Also in 2014, a right-to-die association in Hamburg caused uproar for offering fast-track assisted suicide consultations in exchange for higher membership fees. Its normal rate was €2,000, with a waiting time of a year, but it introduced a jump-the-queue service for €7,000. Other providers offered discounts for couples interested in dying together. These were grisly bargains that lead many to regard Germany as a Las Vegas of suicide, which was anathema to a country that saw itself as otherwise Christian and conservative. Church groups took to Berlin's streets as legislators sought to crack down on the industry. Arnold and others passionately defended their businesses. The 'death helpers' argued the issue was comparable to abortion: a ban would be unfair to the terminally ill, who shouldn't have to travel to places like Switzerland to end their lives with dignity. The debate ended with parliament banning 'commercial' assisted suicide under Chancellor Angela Merkel in 2015. Subsequently, only friends and relatives who received no money for their assistance could help someone end their life. Legal challenges were launched by right-to-die advocates and people suffering terminal illnesses. In a 2020 judgement, the Constitutional Court said the freedoms enshrined in the country's post-war constitution meant 'the decision to take one's own life must be respected by the state as an act of personal autonomy'. Those who had been put out of work by the previous ruling were free to ply their trade once again. Five years after that decision, it feels like we're back to the Wild West of pre-2015. Assisted suicide in Germany is an unregulated free-for-all. A slew of undertakers, lawyers and independent doctors are facilitating a rising toll of assisted deaths. Last year it was about 1,000, though no one is keeping exact figures. Likewise there's no central registry of providers. Nearly anyone can set up shop. The largest player in the business is the German Association for Humane Dying (DGHS), which charges €4,000 a suicide but offers a discounted €6,000 for couples. It says that of the 623 people for whom it arranged suicide last year (it forwards requests to independent teams of doctors and lawyers), 22 per cent were just 'fed up with life'. Two-thirds were female. DGHS spokesperson Wega Wetzel says: 'Women are more likely to be widowed and 'left over' than men. Women are more likely to plan and communicate, while men often choose 'hard' suicide methods such as hanging.' Equally worrying is the fact that nothing prevents young people from choosing the path of assisted suicide. The youngest case I heard of was a 21-year-old man. The only requirement spelled out by the court was that the person be 'freely responsible' for their decision. At least DGHS, to maintain its reputation, has doctors and lawyers screen applicants to ensure they understand what they're getting into, that they're not being coerced and that they do not show symptoms of mental illness or dementia. But nobody knows how many independent providers are making money with assisted suicide. Nobody knows how they are screening clients, particularly in the more affordable services where standards may be lower. A study last month in the British Medical Journal analysed 77 assisted suicides in Munich. It found that one patient's consultation with a clinic lasted 55 minutes and the death was booked for the next day. The assisting physician in another case was a relative of the patient. In a 2022 case, the suicidal person was judged of sound mind based on a five-year-old mental capacity evaluation. But there is still broad support for the right to die: 80 per cent of Germans feel it's appropriate for the critically ill. But just 30 per cent say it should be available to people with a long life ahead of them, and only 3 per cent for young people having a crisis. Ute Lewitzska, professor for suicide studies at Frankfurt University, sees a fundamental change in how we deal with growing old. 'Supply creates demand,' she says. 'The 2020 court decision didn't just open a crack in the door, it flung the door wide open – and we're not going to be able to close that door again.' The fear is a normalisation of assisted suicide. For some it's a humane way to end one's life; for others it's an easy solution to suffering that's being oversold. Dr Lukas Radbruch, director of palliative care at University Clinic Bonn, has worked with end-of-life patients for three decades. He says many more now ask about assisted suicide but 'so many people are not sufficiently informed. Or we have doubts about how voluntary their choice is. Or we realise they still want to live, even if they say they want to die.' Sometimes a suicidal person needs counselling, not the means to kill themselves. Where do you draw the line? Dr Radbruch asks. In 2023 the German parliament tried to hammer out rules to provide clearer guidance, but MPs couldn't reach a consensus. Like many in the West, Germany seems destined to grope its way through this ethical minefield with no transparent way forward that is satisfactory for all. I do not envy the task ahead for Britain's Lords. My country's experience offers a salutary lesson that for the Bill to become law, they must make black and white what is a painfully grey issue.
