Ms N who went to court over a motor accident claim found herself extensively cross-examined about a rape 17 years earlier

She had not reported the rape to the police but had gone to her GP who sent her for counselling. The rape became central to the trial as a means of determining whether the woman was a truthful witness about the effects of her car accident. "The judge said that if I lied bout being raped I could have lied about anything." She was awarded £55,000 compensation out of her £350,000 claim. Because of her injuries in the accident, she was unable to continue with her work, and had suffered very heavy losses.

WAR and she both wrote to the Lord Chancellor calling for the judge’s dismissal pointing out that only a jury could determine whether a woman was raped and this hearing hadn’t even been a rape trial, that she was dyslexic and had got confused about dates and other details, and had been treated very brutally by the judge. The intention was to embarrass, humiliate, debilitate and attempt to discredit her, depriving her of a fair hearing and outcome. The Lord Chancellor reprimanded the judge for saying that "she played the rape card" but no action was taken. Leave to appeal against the reduced compensation award had been refused. After Liberty had decided not take the case to European Court of Human Rights WAR consulted a barrister about whether it could be taken, but he said no because a there was not a strong enough case to suggest that another judge would make a substantially different decision.