Handbook on Sexual Violence (26 page)

2007/08

When the ‘conviction’ rate includes convictions for a lesser offence (e.g. for sexual assault following a charge of rape) the figure is higher, as shown by the rate of 12 per cent calculated by Feist
et al
. (2007) for 2003/04.

Conviction rates calculated using the wider concept of ‘sanction detection’, which includes processes that conclude a case within the CJS but without a formal conviction (e.g. caution), are higher again, as shown by the figures in Table 4.10.

Table 4.10
Sanction detection rates by offence group and selected offence types, percentages and percentage point change between 2002/03 and 2008/09

The highest conviction rates for rape are calculated by the Crown Prosecution Service (2009b), using the percentage of rape cases that were prosecuted as a starting point, and the percentage that led to a conviction for rape or a related and lesser offence as an end point. In 2008–9 this figure was 58 per cent for England and Wales (see Tables
4.11 and
4.12 for sexual offences excluding rape).

Table 4.11
Rape crime: pre-charge decisions and completed convictions by outcome, England and Wales

Table 4.12
Sexual offences excluding rape: completed convictions by outcome, England and Wales

Changes in rape attrition/conviction rates

In the period 1997 to 2006, the rate of convictions for rape, as a percentage of police-recorded rapes, declined from 10 per cent in 1997 to 6 per cent in 2006 in England and Wales, according to Lovett and Kelly (2009) (Table
4.8) and from 9 per cent to 8 per cent according to Feist
et al
. (2007). If convictions for lesser offences are also counted, then the conviction rate fell from 18 per cent to 12 per cent between the same years (Feist
et al
. 2007).

In the more recent period, 2006/7 to 2008/9, the rate of charging of alleged

rapists and the rate of convictions of those prosecuted have risen slightly in England and Wales. The rate of charging rose from 30 per cent to 39 per cent; while the rate of conviction (including for lesser offences) of those prosecuted rose slightly from 55 per cent to 58 per cent (see Table
4.11; CPS 2009b).

For the period 2002/3 to 2008/9, the sanction detection rate for ‘rape of a female’ fell from 30 per cent to 26 per cent, the lowest point being 25 per cent between 2004/5 and 2007/8 (Table
4.10; Walker
et al
. 2009).

In order to understand these changes, several cross-cutting processes need

to be separated, together with a distinction between the pre- and post- 2003/6 periods.

Throughout the period 1997 to 2009 (and stretching further back in time) there has been an increase in the willingness of women to come forward to report rape to the police. The number of rapes recorded by the police more than doubled, increasing from 6,281 in 1997 to 14,047 in 2006 (Table
4.8; Lovett and Kelly 2009). Women appear to have demonstrated an increased confidence in the police and CJS to address the crime of rape; however, the increased reporting has not been matched by an increased rate of convictions (for discussion of the potential reasons for attrition in the criminal justice process, see Feist
et al
. 2007).

Between 1997 and 2006, there was a decline in the percentage of cases that

led to prosecution, from 30 per cent to 18 per cent. Between 1997 and 2003, there was a decline in the percentage of prosecutions that led to conviction, from 32 per cent to 24 per cent (Table
4.8; Lovett and Kelly 2009).

When looking at conviction rates from the point of prosecution, the pattern is reversed from 2003. Lovett and Kelly’s (2009) data set (Table
4.8), shows an increase in the percentage of prosecutions that led to conviction for rape from 24 per cent in 2003 to 34 per cent in 2006. Another data set (Table
4.11; CPS

2009b) shows an increase in the percentage of prosecutions that led to conviction for rape or some related lesser offence from 55 per cent in 2006/7 to

58 per cent in 2008/9. In addition, between 2006/7 and 2008/9, there is an improvement in the percentage of recorded rape cases which resulted in defendants being formally charged, increasing from 30 per cent in 2006/7 to 39 per cent in 2008/9 (
Table 4.11). There have been many changes in policy by the CPS since around 2003, and these appear to have had effects. In particular, the CPS took over the decision-making on prosecution. Without specialised in- depth study the specific impacts of these changes cannot be identified.

It would be useful to be able to investigate whether attrition (or the proportion of cases falling out) from the point of police recording to conviction had declined (implying improvement) during the recent period, 2006/7 to 2008/

9. Unfortunately, the way the CPS (2009b) presents data for the public domain does not allow an attrition rate to be calculated for the CJS as a whole since there is a major discontinuity in the data provided by the CPS for the pre- charge and prosecution parts of the CJS process. There are many possible reasons for this, for example one set of data may refer to defendants and the other to offences, but these do not appear to be noted by the CPS in their report. So, while separate stages in the process can be investigated, it is not possible from the CPS data to produce a summary attrition rate for the CJS overall.

In summary, it would appear that the attrition rate for rape appears to have got worse (i.e. a higher proportion of cases being lost before being brought to justice) in the period 2002/3 to 2008/9, with a very small improvement (a higher proportion of cases resulting in conviction for rape) since around 2006.

Comparative attrition/conviction rates

While the rates of charging and rate of conviction after the start of the prosecution no longer give rise to the same level of concern as was noted in the past (Stern 2010), there is still serious concern about other points of attrition. A high proportion of cases are being lost between reporting to the police and charging (Feist
et al
. 2007), and from the point of recording by the police (Baird 2010). In order to make an assessment of the extent to which these attrition rates from the point of police recording are worse for equality groups than for non-equality groups it is necessary to make comparisons.

Table
4.10 shows that the sanction detection rate for ‘rape of a female’ was

26 per cent in 2008/9 compared with 47 per cent for ‘violence against the person’ and 41 per cent for ‘violence against the person with injury’ (Walker
et al
. 2009). The attrition rate is thus considerably worse for rape than for other violent crimes.

Similarly, of the offenders proceeded against, guilty verdicts were handed down in 38 per cent of the cases involving ‘rape of a female’, and 69 per cent of the cases involving ‘violence against the person’ (Table
4.13). This again shows that the attrition rate is considerably worse for rape than for other violent crimes, whether violence against the person or other sexual offences.