Sex crimes in court - Forbidding system fails too many

FIGURES suggesting that over 70% of sexual assaults are not dealt with by the courts should cause us all to pause and wonder why, in a country that imagines itself reasonably progressive, humane and protective of individuals’ rights, this can be so.

We should ask why so many people, nearly always women, are failed by the state — us — in their moment of great need and painful humiliation.

Is it because some of us have a deeply-hidden Old Testament streak that suggests that the victim is not always as innocent as they might suggest?

Is it because some of us think that women forfeit their right to the protections they are entitled to if they have a few drinks and behave or dress in a particular way?

Is it because our systems, from the garda station front desk to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, lack the training or natural empathy needed to give optimal service and protection to those who seek it?

Whatever the reason, it is time this unhappy record was finally confronted and resolved. This situation, where some women try to have their day in court, where others don’t have the confidence in our systems to even try to achieve that, is not fit for purpose. And what is most galling is the fact that no-one, especially those who work in it, wants our system to be as ineffective or forbidding as it is.

So why are these figures so stubbornly high?

One reason is that the gardaí do not filter cases, sending all sex crime files to the DPP even if they believe that there is little or no chance of a prosecution ensuing. This serves neither the complainant or our justice system well — not to mention the reputation of the gardaí — but it may have the small benefit of buying some healing, recovery time before a victim is told that there is no prospect of a successful prosecution on foot of their complaint.

Nevertheless, it is far from ideal and creates an impression that the DPP rejects huge numbers of cases when in fact many of them should not have been sent to the office at all.

This may be of little consolation to a victim and the fact that the DPP will not explain why a case has been turned down rubs salt into an already raw wound. The DPP has begun to offer explanations in some types of cases and maybe consideration should be given to extending that innovation to applications around claims of sex crimes. Now that the three chief law officers of the land are women, that suggestion might get a more favourable response.

There is, too, the nagging feeling that our lack of respect, for others and for ourselves, plays no small part in this sorry saga. Someone, or a even a society, with low self-esteem will not have the confidence, strength or sense of being denied justice or basic rights needed to go negotiate this unnecessarily difficult maze.

One thing we do know is that we cannot guarantee that this state offers the level of support, comfort or clear-headed determination a victim of a sex crime should be entitled to at their moment of greatest need.