Office colleague jailed for 10 years
A woman lured into a building by a stranger when going home after a Christmas drinks party at the office. When she reported it the police kept her in the police station, in shock, with no sleep for 12 hours; she didn't know notes were being taken, and said she had been treated "worse than a criminal". She talked over with WAR what had happened, her worries about going to court, and ongoing concerns about her safety from future attacks. At the trial, she had to listen as her 999 call was replayed for the jury, but she held out, took the stand, and saw the rapist, who had previous offences, jailed for 10 years.

The case came to trial twice. The first time, the CPS prosecutor was incompetent and hostile; compounding the difficulty most witnesses have speaking publicly about the sexual violence they have suffered. At the retrial, a more competent prosecutor presented the facts and took the witness through her evidence. But, she did not call the man’s ex-wife or son, who waited outside and could have confirmed the truth about the death certificate and the woman’s position in the family. Their evidence would have greatly added to the victim’s credibility. Instead the trial was thrown out by the judge on grounds of insufficient evidence. Many of the jurors felt strongly that the decision should not have been taken out of their hands without even an explanation. One of them told us, "No wonder women don’t want to report rape if this is what happens. What is that poor woman supposed to do now?"

This is not the first time that judges, renowned for sexism, act in a shocking way. But this time there was a difference. While years of campaigning against rape have not yet succeeded in getting a higher proportion of rapists prosecuted, the legal establishment is now anxious to cover its tracks. Judges who for centuries upheld the preposterous fiction that rape inside marriage is not a crime, routinely used their discretion to let victims be cross-examined about irrelevant sexual history, and allowed women’s knickers to be passed round the court room as "evidence", are sometimes less blatantly sexist. This judge didn't accuse the woman of lying, he claimed to be sympathetic as he was throwing the case out. Public outcries, court invasions, calls for biased judges to be sacked, dossiers documenting police and CPS bias have resulted in a greater acknowledgement of the problem, and more sophisticated PR.

CPS apology to woman after murderous rapist husband walks free
Mrs T, a 33-year-old woman, suffered a severe sexual assault, physical beating, attempted rape and threats to kill by her drunken husband. He was charged with attempted rape and was repeatedly arrested for witness intimidation before the trial. At Crown Court, the prosecutor agreed to reduce the charge to assault causing actual bodily harm and he was given a two-year conditional discharge. Neither Mrs T, nor the police were informed of the date of the trial, nor its outcome. Her husband then waged a terrifying campaign of harassment, culminating in a plot to have his estranged wife kidnapped and gang raped while he videoed the attack. A witness reported this to police. But even then the man was not prosecuted properly, the CPS lost the file and the key witness fled the country. Charges were eventually reduced again because Mrs T could not face giving evidence - having to endure cross-examination about her sex life with her ex-husband. He received a suspended two-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to harassment. With the help of Women Against Rape, Mrs T complained to the CPS (who apologised) and asked the Attorney General to investigate the way her case was mismanaged. She reported her experiences in our public meeting to keep women’s sexual history out of rape trials in the House of Commons and we sent a report of her experiences to the Home Secretary demanding that victims of rape be central to the prosecution of their attacker. "I was right at the bottom of their list of priorities. I was basically a nonentity," she said.

Lawyer's letter stops harassment
A woman sexually assaulted by a man from her social club, with whom she refused to have a sexual relationship. He was a licensed black cab driver. The police heard his side of the story and left a message on her answerphone: "I have been round to see Mr X and the case is now closed"! She could not find a solicitor able to help in her area (east London) but found one in central London with WAR's help, and a warning letter from the lawyer at least put an end to his continuing harassment.

"Just a domestic"
A woman raped at knifepoint by her ex-partner delayed in reporting it to the police, because the police had consistently refused to do anything about his previous harassment and violence, and had instead helped him to persecute her (by delivering demands for child support, etc). The woman, who is Black, didn't report the rape at first because she thought she had no evidence, and it would be "her word against his" yet again. When she found she was pregnant as a result of the rape, she did report it – only to meet a continuing refusal on the part of the police and CPS to take the medical evidence seriously and proceed to prosecution. WAR helped her get the case re-opened, and after a shocking meeting with a special lawyer at the Crown Prosecution Service, is now taking it higher. Watch this space!

Ex-wife and prostitute woman join forces against rapist
In 1989, WAR and the English Collective of Prostitutes supported the ex-wife of a man on trial for raping a prostitute woman.  At that time, the law did not recognize rape within marriage as a crime, which the wife had suffered at his hands, as well as other violence.  When he was convicted, she felt vindicated, and together the two women celebrated the verdict.

Woman moves from mixed psychiatric ward to women-only hostel
A rape survivor in distress was detained in a mixed psychiatric ward after attending a routine health appointment in a general hospital.  Being sectioned with other distressed people, one of whom hit her, intensified her trauma.  Her section was due to be reviewed by the Mental Health Act tribunal.  WAR sent evidence to the hearing on why this mixed ward was unsuitable, and found her a lawyer to represent her.  Although the psychiatrist at the tribunal insisted that she stay in hospital, her section was not extended and she was discharged to a supported women-only hostel.

Refused compensation because she delayed reporting for a week -- finally she wins
In 1982 Ms B was dragged off the street by a mental patient and held captive in his flat, threatening her with a knife and a gun, while he raped her twice. She became pregnant as a result of the rape. She was refused compensation because she had delayed one week in reporting the attack to the police. WAR helped her appeal making the case that such a delay is normal – in fact, short – and that as a Black woman Ms B and her family had bad experiences of the police, in addition to knowing about problems with the police response to rape; moreover she had been advised against reporting. The police then didn’t turn up to two appeal hearings in 1986 and 1988, resulting in postponement and wasting everyone’s time. Finally in 1991 Ms B got an award, but it was still reduced by a third because of the delay in reporting.

Woman wins £15,000, but rape award was cut by 50% because she had used alcohol & cannabis
Single mother Ms L was abducted in 1985 from outside a pub and taken to a wasteland where she suffered a horrific violent sexual assault. The three men were discussing how to dispose of her body, but they were frightened off. The police never caught the men. Ms L was given an interim award of £3,000 and told her final award would be reduced by 50% for two reasons: 1) her conduct – she had been drinking and allegedly had chosen to leave the pub with the men, and allegedly had been seen kissing one. In fact both allegations were false. 2) Because of a conviction for having her partner’s cannabis in her home AFTER the assault. In 1993 after WAR took on the appeal, and got a major article in the Independent on Sunday, she was given a £15,000 final award, but reduced it by 50%.

Prostitute woman with no convictions suffers 25% reduction for rape because of "unlawful conduct"
In 1996 Ms P was working as a prostitute when she was repeatedly raped, assaulted and robbed by a client. She reported this to the police immediately. Her attacker was convicted. The CICA refused compensation because "in this case, it is considered that evidence of your unlawful conduct makes it inappropriate that you should receive any award from public funds". Ms P with WAR’s help requested a review pointing out that she had no criminal convictions and that her severe injuries and the long term psychological effect had not been given any consideration. Also, we wrote that prostitute women are entitled to say no to unwanted sex and should be able to rely on the same legal protection against violence. The CICA Review awarded her £7,500 but reduced it by 25% because of her "unlawful conduct". We advised her to appeal the reduction but she decided not to.

Woman wins £10,000 after a year's delay before reporting
In 1992 Ms X a housewife and mother was subjected to a series of violent rapes by a neighbour. His intimidation included threats she’d lose her children and so she did not tell anybody about the rapes for months. When she told her husband he suffered a nervous breakdown. Ms X finally informed the police in June 1993. The CPS refused to prosecute because of the delay in reporting. Her solicitor advised her that the delay meant there is no point in applying for criminal injuries compensation. But encouraged by WAR she applied in 1995 and was awarded £10,000. An earlier High Court precedent was set in March 1995 ruling that a woman who had delayed six weeks before reporting was entitled to compensation, and that the CICB should take account of the fact that the traumatic effects of an assault may prevent rape survivors from reporting it for some time.

Compensation Authority challenged for backing man who raped family friend who was asleep
Mrs Y was raped whilst sleeping having drunk substantial amounts of alcohol. The accused – a friend of a friend - was acquitted in court. Compensation was initially refused on the grounds that "no crime of violence" had taken place. The compensation Board wrote that "the reactions of Mrs Y were not, as she acknowledges,  demonstrably unwelcoming for some time, albeit measured in minutes. She had given him "no signal of absence of consent" (until she woke up fully and threw him off the bed). WAR wrote to the CICA and represented her at appeal, arguing that it goes against the principle of rape law that the absence of a "signal" meant he could take advantage of her while she was asleep. We also objected to their saying "there is an indication of a relationship having developed in which it was not unreasonable for the defendant to at least consider that the exchanges might progress to sexual intimacy". The Appeal Panel (two women and a man) asked her about the quality of her sex life with her husband and (a tee-totaller who said he knew nothing about alcohol) suggested she was so drunk she couldn’t say whether or not she had consented. Despite this, she won £7,500.

Prostitute woman intitially denied compensation wins £4,000 -- 50% reduction for drug convictions
Ms G was raped and robbed in 1994 while working as a prostitute. She reported it despite the fact that she had convictions related to prostitution and the rapist was sentenced to four years for rape and four years for robbery to run concurrently. In 1995 the CICB turned down an application for compensation in spite of recognising that her convictions "have nothing whatsoever to do with the incident which gives rise to the application" and that "notwithstanding her way of life, she is entitled to say no and no one is entitled to assault her as she was assaulted on this occasion". Her lawyer organised legal aid to cover WAR’s report for the CICA. Ms G organised a housing association worker as a witness. Her story was featured in The Guardian. WAR represented her at her appeal where she won £4,000, which was a 50% reduction because of her drug convictions.

Two women raped at knifepoint win £5,000, but Appeal Panel member says rape is not the same for prostitutes
In 1995 two women won the first private prosecution for rape, assisted by the English Collective of Prostitutes, Legal Action for Women and WAR. They were raped by the same client on different occasions. He got 14 years in prison, reduced to 11 on appeal. In court the defence accused them of inventing the rape in order to claim compensation (a common tactic, sometimes thrown even at women who never apply for compensation). They had intitially been refused compensation for delay in reporting and non-cooperation with the police, but when the man was convicted, the CICA heard an appeal. They went before a Panel of three male QCs, represented by WAR. Although the Panel had already decided to grant an award they commented that there was a question as to whether prostitutes were entitled to the same amount as other women. One even implied that the effects of rape on prostitutes are not as serious, since they would have had sex if they had been paid, despite a medical report confirming persisting Rape Trauma Syndrome and witnesses who came to confirm the serious effects of the rapes. WAR challenged this, and pointed out the world of difference between consenting sex for money and being raped at knifepoint. The Panel also questioned whether they paid tax; they said no. They finally awarded the women £5,000 each but later refused to put their reasons in writing.

£156,000 Victory after woman's fall from window ledge wrongly classed as accident, not violence
In 1992 Ms Q climbed through a window to escape two male acquaintances who after drinking alcohol together had locked her in a room and threatened her with rape. She lost her balance and fell three stories to the ground below. She suffered a broken back, smashed heel, leg injuries, and was unable to care for herself. The men were never prosecuted. In 1994 her application for compensation was refused when the CICB decided there had been "no crime of violence". With WAR’s help, Ms Q appealed, submitting documentation WAR helped gather, including WAR’s expert report. WAR found the police had taken a statement from her within days of the injury, in her hospital bed when she was just out of intensive care and still heavily sedated. She had been unable to report to the male police officer that she had fallen while trying to get away from imminent rape, and that she had a history of child abuse which made her panic before she fell.

At the appeal hearing in 1996, represented by WAR, Ms Q was informed that the CICB now accepted her entitlement but were sending her away to gather detailed medical documentation to help settle the amount. The Board advised her to get a solicitor and a barrister. In 1998, Ms Q employed a lawyer and a barrister, but declined to use those recommended by WAR, and also chose not to invite WAR to the hearing. The Board treated Ms Q, her witnesses and representatives disrespectfully and dismissively. They implied she had attempted criminal fraud and had exaggerated her injuries. Her boyfriend was asked whether compensation money was the real motivation for their relationship. Ms Q was awarded £156,000 (after reductions for social security benefits). But since the barrister did not defend her or the witnesses effectively, in spite of the award, she was left feeling undermined and insulted. We don’t know how much she had to pay the lawyer and barrister.