logo
Stacey Dooley: Rape on Trial review – it's impossible not to feel profound admiration for these brave women

Stacey Dooley: Rape on Trial review – it's impossible not to feel profound admiration for these brave women

The Guardian13-03-2025

It's a tough job, being the presenter of a documentary about rape and its victims. But – given the enduring and increasingly scandalous horrors those victims are facing in a country whose appallingly flawed legal approach has effectively decriminalised the act – someone's got to do it.
This time it is Stacey Dooley's job. The two-part documentary Rape on Trial focuses on the difficulties presented by cases in which the supposed perpetrator and victim are known to each other. It also looks at the suffering caused by the ever-lengthening delays between rapes being reported and reaching trial, in the surpassingly rare instance (despite recent efforts to improve matters) that the Crown Prosecution Service agrees to let them proceed. The documentary was slated to take a year to film – it ended up taking three, so slow was the progress on any of the cases its makers were following.
Dooley deploys her natural talent for exuding a kind of stalwart sympathy as she interviews three women who all knew the men they say raped them, as they wait for their cases to be heard. Jessie (all the women have waived their right to anonymity and appear on camera) endured, she says, repeated unwanted sex from her much older boyfriend when she was a teenager. ('I would wake up with him inside me.') It is four years from the time of her reporting the rape to getting a verdict. In the meantime, he is out on bail and Jessie frequently sees him around town, and working near her house. Jessie's mother, Michelle, says that her daughter has become all but unrecognisable under the strain. 'She means everything to me, that girl, and I just want her back.' Jessie's is a rare case in that she has additional witnesses, including a former girlfriend of the defendant and another woman who each say he raped them too. Will three women's word against one man's be enough to win what one defence solicitor calls 'the credibility battle' in court? How much does it take to persuade a jury not just that you are telling the truth but to meet the required standard of proof – that the accused could have had no reasonable belief in consent?
Emma says she was orally raped at 16 by a classmate in college. Until then, she says, she thought 'to be frozen with fear' was just an expression. 'You can't move. You don't believe it, but it's true.' Her mum persuaded her to report him to the police. The trial has been postponed three times. 'I've just got to do it because if not I'll regret it for the rest of my life … even though I'm dying inside.' She has been suicidal – a woman once intervened as she was attempting to kill herself. After that, Emma's father slept in a sleeping bag in front of the front door every night so they could keep her safe. In cross-examination, the defence suggests she has made the whole thing up because she was in love with the popular, wealthy accused. Emma is 19 before she gets a verdict. As she sobs uncontrollably in its wake, her mother puts her arms around her and stares dry-eyed into an incomprehensible future.
Becca says she was raped by a man she was dating at university. 'I felt like I knew him, then in that moment I realised I didn't know him at all.' She waits three and a half years for the trial, before which she is advised by the witness service team to wear muted colours and keep her shoulders covered. The defence suggests that Becca, as a former drama student, has made up her story for effect.
Dooley is the right person for the emotional parts – straightforward, unobtrusive and safe without being soft. But she is underpowered in the interviews with others, such as the deputy national lead on rape and serious sexual offences, Siobhan Blake, and defence lawyers who represent alleged rapists.
It will, as Jessie – incandescent with fury alongside her misery – hopes, heighten awareness of the problems faced by claimants who enter this profoundly flawed system and the endemic biases that greet them from every quarter. But it is hard to admire a documentary that doesn't also move the conversation on. This could be done by proffering some possible answers to what can be done to redress inbred prejudices that accompany he said/she said trials in which there is no forensic or other evidence. Or by interviewing people who have some idea of what reforms can be made to the law, examining what difference further funding could make, or how we change a culture in which disbelief of rape claims is/seems to be the default position. .
It is difficult to feel anything very much apart from profound admiration for the women involved, and the loving people who support them, and a profound despair at their suffering – and that which is still to come.
Stacey Dooley: Rape on Trial aired on BBC Three and is on iPlayer.
In the UK and Ireland, Samaritans can be contacted on freephone 116 123, or email jo@samaritans.org or jo@samaritans.ie. In the US, you can call or text the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline on 988, chat on 988lifeline.org, or text HOME to 741741 to connect with a crisis counselor. In Australia, the crisis support service Lifeline is 13 11 14. Other international helplines can be found at befrienders.org
Information and support for anyone affected by rape or sexual abuse issues is available from the following organisations. In the UK, Rape Crisis offers support on 0808 500 2222 in England and Wales, 0808 801 0302 in Scotland, or 0800 0246 991 in Northern Ireland. In the US, Rainn offers support on 800-656-4673. In Australia, support is available at 1800Respect (1800 737 732). Other international helplines can be found at ibiblio.org/rcip/internl.html

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Reeves to give prosecutors extra £250m to tackle courts backlog
Reeves to give prosecutors extra £250m to tackle courts backlog

Telegraph

time7 hours ago

  • Telegraph

Reeves to give prosecutors extra £250m to tackle courts backlog

More prosecutors are to be recruited, as part of a £250 million courts cash injection to be announced by Rachel Reeves. The funding will tackle record legal backlogs which are forcing thousands of victims to wait more than two years for justice. Secured by Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary, the money is a 10 per cent uplift for the period 2026-29. It will enable the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to recruit and retain hundreds of prosecutors to tackle the backlog of cases, which stood at a record 74,651 at the end of 2024. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is expected to emerge as one of the biggest winners in the spending review on Wednesday. The Chancellor will also confirm an extra £700 million to recruit more probation officers as part of an expansion of community punishments to ease prison overcrowding. Ms Mahmood has further secured a £4.7 billion capital investment to build new prisons to help meet the Government's target of 14,000 extra jail places by 2031. Three sites – HMPs Garth, Grendon and Gartree – have already been commissioned. The funding increase is a recognition of the political damage the Government could suffer if it fails to solve the prison overcrowding crisis and reduce court delays. Last year's early release of thousands of prisoners, including some who were filmed toasting Sir Keir Starmer, has been a major factor in undermining public confidence in Labour, according to opinion polls. A Treasury source said the cash injection would 'speed up justice for victims and witnesses waiting months or years for cases to come to trial, after the Government inherited a justice system on the brink of collapse and courts in crisis'. The source added: 'To battle the backlog, this new funding by 2028/29 will mean the CPS can recruit more Crown Advocates and front-line staff to prosecute cases and better support victims.' The MoJ is soon expected to announce the biggest shake-up in a generation of the court system, with thousands of suspects to be stripped of the right to a jury trial. The plans, to be outlined by Sir Brian Leveson, one of Britain's most senior judges, are expected to limit the number of such cases to help clear the backlog. Proposals being considered include the creation of an intermediate court comprising a judge and two magistrates to hear cases that would previously have gone to a lengthy crown court trial before a jury. It is understood Sir Brian has also been looking at the possibility of increasing magistrates' sentencing powers so that they would be able to rule on cases related to offences that carry prison sentences of up to two years. They can currently only imprison convicted offenders for up to a year. Any removal of jury trials is expected to prompt a fierce backlash from many within the legal profession. However, Ms Mahmood has already warned that without such action the court backlog could increase to an unprecedented 100,000 cases. The courts review, commissioned by Ms Mahmood, follows a sentencing review by David Gauke, the former Tory justice secretary, which recommended criminals should be freed as little as a third of the way into their sentences if they behave well and engage with rehabilitation schemes. The proposals, which have been accepted by the MoJ, will also allow killers, rapists and other violent offenders to be freed halfway through their terms rather than two-thirds, if they behave well and engage in training, education and work while behind bars. A Treasury source said: 'The criminal justice system was broken after 14 years of neglect. We need to rebuild not just the system itself, but confidence in it too. You can't make our streets safer if you don't have the resource to put dangerous suspects on trial. 'That's why the Chancellor is going to throw her backing behind battling the backlog in our courts, hiring more prosecutors and giving them the tools to deliver justice for victims as part of our Plan for Change.'

Koran burner told of imminent terror threat to his life
Koran burner told of imminent terror threat to his life

Telegraph

time20 hours ago

  • Telegraph

Koran burner told of imminent terror threat to his life

An asylum seeker who burnt the Koran has received a police warning of an imminent terror plot to murder him, The Telegraph understands. Hamit Coskun was woken by officers acting on behalf of the Metropolitan Police at 2am on Saturday, who told him of 'an imminent threat', his lawyers said. The officers, who were from another force at a location where Coskun is in hiding, are understood to have read out what is known as an Osman warning. The 50-year-old was last week convicted of a racially aggravated public order offence, after shouting 'f--- Islam' and 'Islam is religion of terrorism' while setting fire to the religious text above his head during a protest on Feb 13. His supporters have accused the Met Police and Crown Prosecution Service of putting his life in danger by pursuing a prosecution against him. The court heard that Coskun, who was living in Derby and had to move to a safe house after a video of the incident was posted online, had been forced to leave his home country of Turkey two and a half years ago to escape persecution. In a letter to Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley, on behalf of Coskun, Lord Young of Acton, General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, stated: 'We consider that the risk to Mr Coskun's life was caused, in part, by the actions of your officers and the CPS. Danger from 'Islamic extremists' 'Your force had repeatedly suggested publicly that Mr Coskun had offended the 'religious institution of Islam'. Doing so has increased the risk to Mr Coskun from Islamic extremists.' Police are obliged to issue an Osman warning when there is intelligence of the threat, but there is not enough evidence to justify the police arresting the potential murderer. A spokesman for the Met Police said: 'There remains an ongoing police investigation in relation to allegations of threats to kill against a 50-year-old male. Given the investigation is ongoing, we won't be able to comment further at this stage.' Coskun was prosecuted under the Public Order Act after burning a copy of the Koran outside the Turkish Consulate in Knightsbridge. Critics of the decision to prosecute him accused British courts of reviving blasphemy laws by the back door in pursuing his prosecution. Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, said: 'This decision is wrong. It revives a blasphemy law that parliament repealed. 'Free speech is under threat. I have no confidence in two-tier Keir to defend the rights of the public to criticise all religions.' 'De facto blasphemy laws' Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch added on social media: 'De facto blasphemy laws will set this country on the road to ruin. This case should go to appeal. Freedom of belief and freedom not to believe are inalienable rights in Britain. 'I'll defend those rights to my dying day.' Blasphemy laws were abolished in the UK 17 years ago. In a statement after the verdict, Coskun said the decision was 'an assault on free speech' that would deter others from exercising their democratic right to protest. He added: 'As an activist, I will continue to campaign against the threat of Islam. 'Christian blasphemy laws were repealed in this country more than 15 years ago, and it cannot be right to prosecute someone for blaspheming against Islam. 'Would I have been prosecuted if I'd set fire to a copy of the Bible outside Westminster Abbey? I doubt it.' He has pledged to continue burning Korans and intends to go on a tour of the UK, visiting Birmingham, Liverpool and Glasgow, where he will set fire to the holy book. It is unclear if he will resist doing so until the case is heard at appeal - should he be able to challenge the verdict against him in a higher court. The CPS said that Coskun was not being prosecuted for burning the book. They argued it was the combination of his derogatory remarks about Islam and the fact that it was done in public that made it an offence. The CPS originally charged Coskun, who is an atheist, with harassing the 'religious institution of Islam'. CPS charge amended However, the charge was later amended after free speech campaigners took up his cause and argued he was essentially being accused of blasphemy. Katy Thorne KC, Coskun's barrister, had argued that his actions were not motivated by hostility towards the followers of Islam, but the religion itself. District Judge John McGarva, however, said he did not accept that argument. Giving his verdict, Judge McGarva said: 'Your actions in burning the Koran where you did were highly provocative, and your actions were accompanied by bad language in some cases directed toward the religion and were motivated at least in part by hatred of followers of the religion.' The judge ordered Coskun, who is currently claiming asylum, to pay a fine of £240. A man has admitted assaulting Coskun during his demonstration outside the Turkish Embassy, but has denied using a knife in the attack. The man, whose identity is subject to reporting restrictions, is due to go on trial in 2027.

Pro-Palestinian protester in two-tier police row is Islamist refugee
Pro-Palestinian protester in two-tier police row is Islamist refugee

Telegraph

timea day ago

  • Telegraph

Pro-Palestinian protester in two-tier police row is Islamist refugee

A pro-Palestinian activist who evaded terror charges in a two-tier policing row is an Islamist propagandist granted asylum in Britain, The Telegraph can reveal. The demonstrator, who avoided prosecution after chanting ' I love the 7th of October ' at a London rally last year, can now be named as Mohammad al-Mail, a 27-year-old Kuwaiti national granted refugee status in the UK in 2017. In May, The Telegraph published footage of Mr Mail glorifying the Hamas massacre and shouting, 'I like an organisation that starts with H' through a megaphone at an anti-Israel protest in Swiss Cottage, north-west London, last September. He was later arrested on suspicion of terrorism offences but never charged. By contrast, a Jewish man who attended a counter-protest on the same day and briefly held a placard mocking Hezbollah's leader was charged after police claimed the sign could cause 'distress' to terrorist sympathisers. It took eight months for the Crown Prosecution Service to admit there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. The Telegraph can now reveal that Mr Mail claimed he avoided prosecution by telling counter-terrorism officers that the 'H' in his chant stood for the Home Office, rather than Hamas. In footage obtained by The Telegraph – which police confirmed they had not seen – Mr Mail appears to boast of misleading investigators. In an Arabic-language podcast aired in March, he said the case 'fell apart' after he gave what appeared to be a knowingly false answer when asked: 'Who do you mean by the letter H?' He said: 'Immediately, I answered, 'It could be the Home Office', you know, the ministry of the interior. 'I love the ministry of the interior', and so on. 'Truly, as the saying goes, 'The worst calamity is the one that makes you laugh'', he joked, adding that officers 'wanted to delve into the depths of my conscience to know what I truly believe'. The Metropolitan Police twice referred his case to the CPS but he was never charged. A source familiar with the case said prosecutors declined to bring charges, fearing it would be 'speculation' to infer support for a proscribed group from his chant. The Telegraph can also reveal that Mr Mail's support for terror groups was not limited to the Sept 20 protest. Since being granted asylum, he has used the Upper Hand Organisation, his campaign group, to promote an Islamist ideology fundamentally at odds with British democratic values. In the same podcast, he urged supporters to 'seize opportunities' created by the October 7 attack – the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. 'Not every day is like October 7,' he said. 'If an opportunity arises, we must fully exploit it. If you strike, make it hurt.' His website hosts a string of Islamist manifestos and incendiary texts. He has criticised Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and HTS, the Syrian group, for being too pragmatic and failing to advance global jihad. He wrote that such groups have 'ultimately succumbed to the international system and failed to bring about significant change to the concept of jihad itself – jihad, which is understood as a struggle to establish Sharia on earth'. Mr Mail has promoted the jihadist cause online and distributed leaflets and stickers at protests. On Aug 17 2024, the Upper Hand Organisation issued a pamphlet titled Wake Up! Protect the Honour of Islam, which portrayed the Israel-Palestine conflict as a 'war of faith'. It glorifies jihad, urges mobilisation, and repeats the slogan 'a new Khaybar awaits' – a phrase often used to incite violence against Jews. The document claims his group is 'committed to channelling resources toward strategic projects to achieve Islamic dominance'. On Nov 11 2024, Mr Mail announced he would surrender to police over his chants but told supporters to 'continue the path of jihad'. He described peaceful Muslims as 'slaves and dwarves' and issued a warning to Britain: 'What is coming to you is terrifying – either our annihilation or yours.' In recent months, he has used his platform to lobby Parliament to de-proscribe Hamas and divert taxpayer funds to sharia courts. He also opposes the banning of child marriage, arguing it discriminates against 16 and 17-year-old Muslim girls. In a statement to The Telegraph, the Met said it was unaware of Mr Mail's apparent admission and record of Islamist advocacy until contacted by this newspaper. A spokesman said the force 'does not believe the material provided to us was known to officers at the time of their initial investigation. It did not form part of the case put to the CPS'. 'Officers will carefully review it to identify any offences so the appropriate action can be taken.' The case has been condemned as an example of two-tier policing, deepening embarrassment for Scotland Yard and raising concerns over national security among senior politicians and extremism experts. On Friday evening, Chris Philp, the shadow policing minister, said that, in light of The Telegraph's latest revelations, 'the police must urgently re-investigate the incident with a view to re-arresting the man concerned'. He added: 'I am deeply worried that someone came here, was granted asylum and then abused the UK's generosity by expressing extremist views. This is why our human rights and asylum laws need to be changed.' His comments were echoed by Lord Walney, the Government's former extremism tsar, who described the latest evidence uncovered by this newspaper as 'disturbing and raises serious questions for the Metropolitan Police'. 'The fact officers were apparently unaware of this open source material when they submitted the case to the Crown Prosecution Service suggests an alarming lack of rigour in their initial investigation,' he said. 'In light of this, it is vital that the police reopen the case to ensure national security can be protected.' The Jewish counter-protester, who was charged for 'causing distress', said the revelations were yet more evidence of 'two-tier policing'. The CPS dropped the case against him last month, eight months after he was first arrested. 'The police were sufficiently well-resourced to know I'd be at the counter-protest the following week and to circulate my photograph among officers on the ground so they could arrest me. Yet counter-terror police were apparently unable to carry out a basic Google search on this man before interviewing him,' he said. The CPS said it is urgently reviewing its decision not to press charges against Mr Mail. The Upper Hand Organisation, which he founded in 2012, was already active in Kuwait when Mr Mail arrived in Britain. During his studies, he was convicted in absentia of 13 offences by the Gulf state, including defaming the Emir and spreading subversive ideas, receiving a combined sentence of 53 years. He said these were politically and religiously motivated and was granted asylum in the UK on May 5 2017. He later received a partial pardon but remains in the UK. A Home Office spokesman said: 'Supporting a proscribed organisation is a serious criminal offence. The investigation and prosecution of criminal offences, including determining whether an offence has been committed or not, is a matter for the police and Crown Prosecution Service, who are operationally independent. 'It is our longstanding policy not to comment on individual cases.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store