This is the joint website of  Women Against Rape and Black Women's Rape Action Project. Both organisations are based on self-help and provide support, legal information and advocacy. We campaign for justice and protection for all women and girls, including asylum seekers, who have suffered sexual, domestic and/or racist violence.

WAR was founded in 1976. It has won changes in the law, such as making rape in marriage a crime, set legal precedents and achieved compensation for many women. BWRAP was founded in 1991. It focuses on getting justice for women of colour, bringing out the particular discrimination they face. It has prevented the deportation of many rape survivors. Both organisations are multiracial.




What further evidence do they need?

Success story

A London woman was initially denied compensation for rape by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.  They said there was not enough evidence -- even though she had a recording of what had happened!  
She had been advised by police to collect evidence of her husband's constant abuse and violence, and one night when he came home drunk and demanding she managed to press the 'start' button on her son's toy tape recorder. The police considered the evidence very strong indeed, and she went to court for a rape trial, but was persuaded to accept a plea-bargain for the sake of her young son.  The conviction, and the later offer of compensation, were for 'indecent assault' -- only £3,000, less than half the award she'd have got for rape.  With WAR's help she appealed for it to be recognised as rape, and increased her award to £7,750 .  Now we want to know why she had to go through all the pain and work of an appeal.  Compensation is supposed to depend on what the woman suffers, not on what happens in court, but rape survivors seem to be routinely turned down if there hasn't been a criminal conviction.  We are asking the Authority to explain their policy.  If this woman didn't have sufficient evidence, what do they require? A video?