# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sexual violence can have psychological, emotional, and physical effects on a survivor. These effects aren't always easy to deal with, but with the right help and support they can be managed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Countries Compared by Crime > Rape rate. International Statistics at NationMaster.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Number of rape incidents per 100,000 citizens in different countries. Figures do not take into account rape incidents that go unreported to the police.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A female judge's warning that drunk women are putting themselves at greater risk of rape was "victim-blaming", a police commissioner has said.

Judge Lindsey Kushner QC said women were entitled to "drink themselves into the ground" but their "disinhibited behaviour" could put them in danger.

The remarks would stop victims speaking out, Northumbria PCC Vera Baird said.

But the judge said she did not think it was wrong for a judge "to beg women to take actions to protect themselves".

Francis Fitzgibbon, Criminal Bar Association chairman, said it was "sensible" for women "to be educated to know there are predatory men out there".

Judge Kushner, 64, made the courtroom plea as she jailed a man for six years for raping an 18-year-old woman in Manchester last year.

The mother of two, who has sat as a senior circuit judge since 2002, acknowledged judges have been criticised for "putting more emphasis on what girls should and shouldn't do than on the act and the blame to be apportioned to rapists".

"There is absolutely no excuse and a woman can do with her body what she wants and a man will have to adjust his behaviour accordingly."

But she added "as a woman judge" it would "be remiss" if she did not plead with women to protect themselves from predatory men who ''gravitate'' towards drunken females.

'Terrible shame'

But former Labour MP Ms Baird told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "When somebody is raped they feel guilt and shame and they find it very hard to report it.

"If a judge has just said to them 'Well, if you drank you are more likely to get raped, we are not likely to believe you and you have been disinhibited so you've rather brought it on yourself' then that guilt is just going to get worse."

Ms Baird, a former solicitor general and ex-defence barrister, said the judge should have given advice to help women stay safe instead of implying "it's your fault for having attracted him in the first place".

"This looks like victim-blaming and they (organisations such as Rape Crisis) are worried that, yet again, it is going to become harder to get women to make reports," she said.

"That's a terrible shame."

One rape victim told the BBC the judge's comments were "100% victim-blaming".

The woman, who blogs under the name Maria Marcello, said: "It also seems to be an inherently selfish viewpoint - 'looking after yourself' isn't going to make a rapist stop raping, even if it keeps you safe for a night.

"Also in my case, I was practically as safe as I could have been - I was drunk, sure, but I was in my own house and had people I knew around."

Yvonne Traynor, chief executive of Rape Crisis South East, said: "As a judge and a woman she should know better.

"The only person who is responsible for rape, is the rapist.

"Women are yet again being blamed for rape."

Rachel Krys, co-director of End Violence Against Women Coalition, said: "What this judge is saying is exactly the kind of thing that deters women from reporting assaults.

"Women understandably think that they will not be believed, or will be blamed for their own attack if they've had a drink."

But Mr Fitzgibbon, Criminal Bar Association chairman, said he didn't "see it in any way as being victim-blaming in this case".

"Of course, rape is a particularly horrible crime and it must be intensely difficult for anyone - man or woman - who has been raped to tell strangers about what's happened to them."

He added: "It's unusual for a judge to make comments like this I suppose because it was her last day in court the reins were off a bit... she obviously feels strongly that young drunk women are becoming rape victims and she wants to do something about it."

Analysis by Danny Shaw, BBC home affairs correspondent

Judge Kushner's plea to women to protect themselves was strongly - but carefully - worded: she was emphatically not blaming them for an attack but warning them that when drunk they're more vulnerable.

Other judges who've stepped into this tricky territory haven't always framed their remarks so delicately.

Judge Mary Jane Mowat's comment in 2014 that "the rape conviction statistics will not improve until women stop getting so drunk" was designed to highlight a point Judge Kushner also made - that victims are less likely to believed if they've had a lot of alcohol - but she made it sound as though women were responsible for rapists getting off.

But even more insensitive was the comment made by Mr Justice Leonard in 1987 when he declared that the trauma suffered by Ealing vicarage rape victim Jill Saward "had not been so great". He later apologised.

Judge Kushner jailed factory worker Ricardo Rodrigues-Fortes-Gomes, 19, for raping a woman he met in a Burger King in Manchester city centre last year.

Manchester Crown Court heard he ignored his 18-year-old victim's screams as he attacked her on a canal bank.

A witness heard the teenager, who had been drinking lager and vodka as well as inhaling the party drug amyl nitrite, begging Rodrigues-Fortes-Gomes to stop.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A female judge's warning that drunk women are putting themselves at greater risk of rape was "victim-blaming", a police commissioner has said. Judge Lindsey Kushner QC said women were entitled to "drink themselves into the ground" but their "disinhibited behaviour" could put them in danger.

# data[].attributes.body
"There were 33,798 complaints of rape to the police in 2015 - 2016, but just 2,689 (7.5%) resulted in convictions"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Women are being subjected to "humiliating" questions about their clothing or sexual history during rape and sexual assault trials, an MP has said.

The revelation was made while Plaid Cymru MP Liz Savile Roberts introduced a new Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill for its first reading in Parliament on Wednesday. Campaigners hope it will end this practice and restrict the use of a complainant's sexual history at trial unless it is against the interests of justice not to admit it.

Voices4Victims director Claire Waxman, who helped to draft the bill, told The Independent that the organisation had been "seeing a pattern of too many cases of victims of sexual assault being brutally cross examined" in court. This process "re-traumatises victims and causes them irreparable harm," and stops other victims from coming forward, she said.

People's sexual history can be used as evidence under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. The retrial of Ched Evans brought fresh attention to this practice when he was acquitted of raping a 19-year-old woman, after a judge controversially allowed evidence from two men who had had sex with her around the time of the allegation to be heard.

Campaigners believe this high profile case will have a lasting impact on victims' confidence to report sexual crimes.

There were 33,798 complaints of rape to the police in 2015 - 2016, but just 2,689 (7.5%) resulted in convictions, Ms Savile Roberts told the Commons. The vast majority of alleged victims were women.

"Currently victims of sexual abuse face the possibility of being humiliated and their credibility undermined by defence lawyers asking questions about their sexual partners, clothing and appearance."

Highlighting examples where women had been subjected to this form of questioning, she said: "Ivy, a rape victim, was told at a ground rules hearing that her sexual history would not be used. But at court she faced questions and allegations that she was promiscuous - there was no judicial intervention.

"Emma was followed by a stranger who attacked and tried to rape her. Her screams were met with the threat of, 'stop or be killed'.

"Fortunately two off-duty police officers heard her screams," she said, but added: "The trial fixated on why Emma chose to wear a red dress on that summer's evening."

The bill will receive a second reading on 24 March.

An 18-month study by Dame Vera Baird QC in 2015 into rape and sexual assault cases heard at Newcastle Crown Court found victims experienced questions about their sexual history in more than a third of cases.

Rebecca Hitchen, the operations co-ordinator at Rape Crisis South London, told The Independent she and her team find a victim's sexual history being used in court is "common," and happens at a little over half of the trials they attend with victims.

Ms Hitchen oversees the charity's team of Independent Sexual Violence Advocates (ISVA), who provide specialist support for victims entering into criminal justice system, and can help to demystify the legal process for people going to trial. They are also able to attend a victim's trial to provide support, though they cannot give any information that could be seen as coaching or prepping them for the trial.

"Sometimes a survivor's sex life is used by the defence," Ms Hitchen says, "using the idea that if they have previously consented to sex with others then it stands to reason that they would consent to sex with the perpetrator".

She cited distressing examples of questions victims have endured.

One barrister suggested that where a defendant was much younger than a victim, any previous sexual experience with a younger man was evidence of consent, she claimed.

"We have the wearing of underwear come up, for example if a woman is wearing a nightdress with no underwear that will try and be twisted into evidence of consent."

One case saw a barrister ask a victim if she had had anal sex before, which was used to "try to give the impression they would consent to a wide range of sexual experiences, to influence the jury into thinking the survivor had in fact consented and that it wasn't rape".

"I've also known the use of information that a survivor owns a sex toy be used by the defence [as reasoning] she would always be consenting to sex no matter the circumstances," Ms Hitchen said.

The problem with allowing a victim's sexual history to be used as evidence in court, she says, is that "barristers know how to introduce information that will play on the myths and misconceptions that jurors hold" about whether a victim is to blame for being raped or assaulted.

"Any doubt a barrister can cause a jury member helps [their argument] because a jury has to find someone guilty beyond all reasonable doubt."

A report released in January by the Fawcett Society researching hostility and blame culture against women found that over a third of people believe a victim is to blame if they are sexually assaulted.

The report surveyed of over 8,000 people with the question: "If a woman goes out late at night, wearing a short skirt, gets drunk and is then the victim of a sexual assault, is she totally or partly to blame?" The results showed 38 per cent of men and 34 per cent of women believed a female victim is wholly or in part to blame for being sexually assaulted.

While most research relates to the challenges faced by female victims of sexual assault, Alan Robertson, an ISVA at male rape charity SurvivorsUK, that cases like Evans' have an impact on male victims' choice to go to court, too: "Following media coverage of high-profile cases where a survivor's sexual history has been made known and discussed, many men who we support are even more worried about going to court."

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said it is "vital" that the UK has a justice system where victims of rape are given support and protection. The Justice Secretary recently held a summit for victims' groups to discuss how to strengthen the department's support for rape victims and ensure they feel confident enough to come forward, they added.

"The bar for the disclosure of a complainant's sexual history is high but we have listened to the concerns raised and are looking at how the law is working in practice."

Reuse content

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The humiliating questions rape victims have been asked during trials

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Women are being subjected to "humiliating" questions about their clothing or sexual history during rape and sexual assault trials, an MP has said. The revelation was made while Plaid Cymru MP Liz Savile Roberts introduced a new Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill for its first reading in Parliament on Wednesday.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sexual Misconduct | Southern Connecticut State University

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Southern Connecticut State University is concerned about the safety of all University community members. Sexual harassment and sexual violence (sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, and sexual exploitation) are not acceptable behaviors in our community and are violations of the law, University policies and Student Code of Conduct.