The foreman of a jury asked the judge in a rape trial why the victim did not leave earlier if she had been raped so many times, MPs scrutinising the Courts and Tribunals Bill heard during an evidence session with supporters of the government’s jury trial reforms.

One victim, Morwenna, told a public bill committee yesterday that she waited two-and-a-half years for her case to go ahead and twice it was delayed the day before. Morwenna said juries were ‘not bastions of infallibility’ and recalled the foreman of the jury in her case asking the judge that if she had been raped so many times, why did she not leave earlier. She endured ‘pervasive and repeated use of rape myths and stereotypes' during cross-examination 'in a way to deliberately mislead the jury against me’. Despite having 48 injuries, it took the jury three-and-a-half days to decide, by a majority, that the defendant raped her.

Another victim, Charlotte, whose case was heard in the magistrates' court, questioned the pushback against magistrates hearing more cases, pointing out that serious cases such as those involving coercive control are dealt with by magistrates who are lay people, ‘so there is still that accountability from the general public’.

Read more

On removing a defendant’s right to elect, Charlotte said: ‘Why is it that the perpetrator is the one who can make these decisions? It makes it feel like they are in control. As a victim you are running behind, you are catching up. That was exactly the case for me. When I found out that he selected a court, all of a sudden I got a call to say "your perpetrator has picked to go to a magistrates’ court so this is now what’s going to happen". I have no choice in it. I already had no choice for three years when he was controlling me. I had no choice for three years when he was raping me. And now I have no choice for two-and-a-half, three years when I was in the system.’

Victim Jade's case was dropped 13 days before trial but from report to court would have been 1,317 days. She told the committee that victims were asking for a system that was bearable, credible and 'centred with lived experience at the forefront'.