In England and Wales, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) acts independently of police investigators to determine whether, and what, charges should be brought in a criminal case. With an obligation to represent the public interest, the CPS has traditionally operated as a detached organisation, with a limited role in communicating with victims. Recent years have seen a shift in this respect. This has been particularly acute in rape and serious sexual offence cases, where critical scrutiny has propelled the CPS to acknowledge the need for greater transparency, accountability and engagement with complainants. In this article, we explore this in the context of pilots conducted as part of a performance improvement initiative known as 'Operation Soteria'. We explore how lawyers responded to requirements to collaborate more closely with Independent Sexual Violence Advisers, who often support victim-survivors, and to communicate more directly and effectively with rape complainants. We identify points of resistance, tied to perceptions of prosecutorial remit or 'good' lawyering, and highlight training and wellbeing implications for prosecutors engaging in this qualitatively different way with-often vulnerable-individuals. We reflect on the challenges faced by the CPS in embedding any cultural shift away from its being a 'faceless institution'.

Across several legal jurisdictions, the history of rape investigation and prosecution is one replete with points of crisis and condemnation, leading to high-profile reviews and reform. This article draws on original data that explores prosecutorial processes and decision-making in the context of a recent improvement initiative in England and Wales, known as 'Operation Soteria'. Though identifying some signs of progress in the context of this initiative, the authors focus on decision-making in respect of lines of investigative enquiry, belief in consent and prospects of conviction to highlight the malleability of the thresholds of reasonableness upon which case progression is determined. Demonstrating that misconceptions about sexual violence and assessments of evidence based on privileged perspectives too often continue to inform the processes and outcomes of prosecutorial engagement, the article reflects on the prospects for rape justice.

Section 28, the last of the special measures under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to be implemented, was rolled out across England and Wales between 2020 and 2022. This allows vulnerable and/or intimidated witnesses and complainants, who have first pre-recorded their evidence-in-chief through a police video-recorded interview, to pre-record their cross-examination, which is then presented to the court during the substantive trial. This article critically explores s. 28 by drawing upon qualitative data from 108 semi-structured interviews conducted with participants across seven stakeholder groups, including criminal justice practitioners, and complainants and their families in sexual offences cases. Through a critical consideration of the articulated benefits associated with s. 28 within the context of sexual offences cases, we argue that there continue to be substantial challenges associated with its implementation that reduce its prospects for success, and which need to be addressed as a priority.

At international and domestic levels, there is an increasingly well-established evidence base documenting the incidence of non-fatal strangulation or suffocation in intimate partner relationships. While the meaning and significance attributed to this behaviour can be complicated and contested, it is widely acknowledged that the risks involved are substantial. In the context of abusive relationships, it has been recognised as a reliable predictor of increased risk of domestic homicide with new, bespoke non-fatal strangulation or suffocation offences created in England and Wales to improve pathways to prevention, reporting and prosecution. Despite this, research has continued to question the adequacy of existing professional responses in terms of identification, risk assessment and safety planning, as well as understanding of potential links between exposure to strangulation or suffocation and suicidality. This article draws on a detailed analysis of statutory reviews, conducted in England and Wales in certain cases of domestic abuse–related suicide, alongside a series of stakeholder interviews, to explore the incidence and impact of experiencing strangulation or suffocation upon victims. We focus, in particular, on the prevalence and contexts of such experiences; challenges around disclosure and identification; the adequacy of professional risk-assessment and intervention; and understanding of the complex range of physical, cognitive, mental and emotional effects. Documenting the limited consideration often given by agencies and review panels alike to the incidence and impact of non-fatal strangulation or suffocation in these reviews, we highlight, in particular, a lack of attention to its potential to increase risks of suicidality as well as homicide.

Distinct from a criminal justice investigation, which focuses on the retrospective attribution of responsibility and the imposition of punishment on a perpetrator of abuse, domestic homicide reviews (DHRs) involve a contextual exploration of the circumstances in which the death occurred, with a view to learning lessons that can facilitate improved safeguarding, agency engagement, and support provision. In this article, we report on an analysis of reviews completed in England and Wales in cases of domestic abuse-related suicide, and interviews with professionals and bereaved family members. We highlight challenges faced in relation to facilitating voice and participation, encouraging critical reflection and accountability, and ensuring implementation and prevention. With the DHR regime under review in England and Wales, and a focus on its applicability to deaths by suicide, we reflect on lessons that might be learned from other processes where efforts to cultivate a 'just' rather than a 'blame' culture have also been made.

Participation in, and attendance at, court often positions people amid a charged emotional environment, where the evidence frequently involves distressing accounts and the stakes of decision-making are high. Research has explored the impact of this environment on various court protagonists. What this research has failed to consider in detail, however, are the ways in which such vectors of emotional reaction, containment and contagion interact and flow across the criminal court space: yielding affective environments in which emotion is not a commodity held (or denied) by one person, but a force that permeates and seeps into the spaces of justice. In this article, we set out the case for why such an understanding is necessary and instructive.

This article draws on analysis of 32 Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) undertaken in England and Wales in cases where the deceased took their life in the context of domestic abuse, as well as a series of 36 interviews and one focus group discussion, conducted by the authors with key stakeholders in the DHR process, including commissioners, Chairs, panel members, and bereaved families. Discussion reflects on the clear, but also complicated, causal relationship between domestic abuse and suicidality that is demonstrated through this data, with close analysis of the experiences reflected within the DHRs providing a particularly rich and textured account of victims’ navigation of complex vulnerabilities, often in plain sight of statutory and third sector services. Highlighting lessons that can, and should, be learned from these human legacies, in the closing sections of the article, we underscore the importance of recognising the compounding effects of intersecting vulnerabilities in a way that resists siloed or victim-blaming responses, while not diminishing the role and responsibility of the perpetrator(s) of abuse. We also emphasise the need for more holistic, trauma-informed, and sustainably funded support, that can connect expertise around domestic abuse more effectively and consistently with expertise on suicide prevention.

This study provides the first analysis of prosecutors, members of the judiciary, voluntary organizations, and police officers’ perspectives about the implementation of coercive control offences. In terms of the design, requiring proof that the prohibited conduct caused a serious effect on the victim-complainant means a continued focus on the victim’s engagement with the criminal justice processes in England, leading to the under-utilisation of evidence-led investigations. This can be positioned in contrast to the approach taken in Scotland by police and prosecutors, where there was greater confidence expressed regarding evidence-led investigation, though this was potentially undermined at the judicial level where victim engagement and performance in court continued to be a main focus. This, we suggest requires continued training for all professionals to ensure that an understanding of the dynamics of coercive control are embedded at each stage of the criminal justice process.

Law schools in the UK regularly encourage and support students to apply for vacation placement schemes on the basis that they provide valuable work experience and improve career progression prospects. There are, however, rarely any processes in place within universities to ensure equitable access to such opportunities nor systematic procedures for enabling reflection and evaluation post-placement before encouraging repeat uptake from future cohorts. In a context in which the legal profession continues to face well-documented challenges in regard to bullying, harassment and discrimination, these placements have the potential to expose students to inappropriate workplace behaviour. However, the nature of students' experiences in this respect, and the adequacy of existing mechanisms for reporting and responding to any complaints, have not to date been the subject of sufficient scrutiny. Drawing on scoping research involving semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, this article explores students' potential exposure to bullying, harassment or discrimination in the particular context of mini-pupillages undertaken at the legal Bar, and calls for increased clarity across chambers, regulators and universities alike in regard to lines of communication and accountability to address this.

The past decade has seen a marked shift in the regulatory landscape of UK higher education. Institutions are increasingly assuming responsibility for preventing campus sexual misconduct, and are responding to its occurrence through - amongst other things - codes of (mis)conduct, consent and/or active bystander training, and improved safety and security measures. They are also required to support victim-survivors in continuing with their education, and to implement fair and robust procedures through which complaints of sexual misconduct are investigated, with sanctions available that respond proportionately to the seriousness of the behaviour and its harms. This paper examines the challenges and prospects for the success of university disciplinary processes for sexual misconduct. It focuses in particular on how to balance the potentially conflicting rights to privacy held by reporting and responding parties within proceedings, while respecting parties' rights to equality of access to education, protection from degrading treatment, due process, and the interests of the wider campus community. More specifically, we explore three key moments where private data is engaged: (1) in the fact and details of the complaint itself; (2) in information about the parties or circumstances of the complaint that arise during the process of an investigation and/or resultant university disciplinary process; and (3) in the retention and disclosure (to reporting parties or the university community) of information regarding the outcomes of, and sanctions applied as part of, a disciplinary process. We consider whether current data protection processes - and their interpretation - are compatible with trauma-informed practice and a wider commitment to safety, equality and dignity, and reflect on the ramifications for all parties where that balance between rights or interests is not struck.

Significant strides have been made in the law's recognition of harms arising from domestic abuse. In England and Wales, the Serious Crimes Act 2015, and in Scotland, the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, have supported a more holistic understanding of the dynamics of abuse and the means by which coercion and control are deployed to cement and supplant perpetrators' violence. In this article, we explore what the introduction of these offences means in other situations where questions regarding the impact of abuse upon victims' agency arise: specifically, where victims commit an offence that might have been compelled by abusive behaviour or take their own lives in contexts that might indicate perpetrators' liability for suicide. In particular, drawing on interviews with professionals across both jurisdictions, we highlight the precarity of recognition of the effects of coercive control and the need to engage in more complicated discussions about when and why context matters.

This commentary responds to claims that research by Cheryl Thomas 'shows' no problem with rape myths in English and Welsh juries. We critique the claim on the basis of ambiguous survey design, a false distinction between 'real' jurors and other research participants, the conflation of attitudes in relation to abstract versus applied rape myths, and misleading interpretation of the data. Ultimately, we call for a balanced appraisal of individual studies by contextualising them against the wider literature.

Scotland,unusually,has three verdicts in criminal trials:guilty,not guilty,and not proven.The not proven verdict, regarded by many as an intermediate option between the other two, has been the subject of a long-running debate as to whether it should be abolished. In this article we argue that it should. Drawing on empirical evidence from two recent studies, we cast doubt on the arguments most often made in its favour – that it serves a valuable communicative function, protects against wrongful conviction, and/or increases juror satisfaction. There is no consensus on its meaning or appropriate application in any given case, and it risks both stigmatising an acquitted accused and diminishing complainers’ opportunities for closure. It is doubtful that it prevents wrongful conviction,but even if it does,there are more effective measures in this regard.

It is unclear how effectively jurors perform their task of assessing witness credibility. Drawing on evidence from a mock jury study involving 863 mock jurors deliberating across 64 juries, and building on existing research, this paper explores juries’ reliance on demeanour. While jurors make use of factors which the research literature suggests are often appropriate credibility markers, for example external consistency of accounts, there is cause for concern over the nuance with which jurors apply those assessments in high stakes contexts. The manner in which jurors look to manner of delivery as evidence of credibility is also problematic. The paper makes the case for a more circumspect approach towards jurors’ use of demeanour assessments. At a minimum, this requires that judicial directions no longer advocate their reliability, but remind jurors of the complexities associated with such assessments and the need to treat any conclusions grounded on presentational cues with caution.

In recent years, growing concerns have been expressed - including in the press and social media - over the apparently inadequate responses of many United Kingdom (UK) universities to complaints of student sexual violence and misconduct (SSVM). In this article, we underscore universities' legal, ethical, and civic responsibilities to students, which require them to implement effective regimes for the prevention and sanctioning of such behaviour. We suggest, however, that current responses are moving in the wrong direction. More specifically, universities are too often turning (back) towards adversarial and procedural paradigms, developed within the criminal justice system, where the persistence of a 'justice gap' in cases of rape and sexual assault has been well documented. We argue that this 'criminal justice drift' may frustrate the possibility for more tailored, transformative, and trauma-informed processes for addressing SSVM within higher education institutions.

It is a liberal truism that to live as a citizen in a society governed by “the rule of law” means both to be ruled by law and to be the ruler of law, at least insofar as submission is the consequence of a quasi-contractual or reciprocal exchange of chaos for order. The architecture of the rule of law ideal is built upon foundations of democratic legitimacy and popular sovereignty and, while the task of its authorship and enforcement may be collectively delegated, the fundamental mandate remains – so the theory goes – within the gift of individual citizens. For decades, however, critical scholars have questioned the legitimacy of this account, highlighting delusions of empowerment and the presence of micro-politics that mediate the relationship between what is authored in the name of citizens and the partial interests this may serve.

This article presents findings from the largest research study of the nature of mock jury deliberations in rape cases undertaken in the UK to date - and the first such study to be undertaken in the Scottish context. The study found considerable evidence of the expression of problematic attitudes towards rape complainers. These included the belief that a 'real' rape victim would have extensive external and internal injuries and would resist attack by inflicting injuries on her attacker and shouting for help, that even a short delay in reporting a rape is suspicious, and that false allegations of rape are commonly made by women and difficult to refute. There was, however, also evidence that some jurors were willing to challenge these attitudes and that they often relied - explicitly or implicitly - on third-sector campaigns to do so. The article concludes by drawing out the implications of this research for policy and practice.

In the original publication of the article, errors in the production stages resulted in Vanessa Munro being listed as sole author.