THE ONLY MEMBERS of the public that should be permitted to attend rape trials are close family members of the accused and alleged victim, an independent review in Northern Ireland has recommended.

This proposal is one of 16 key recommendations in the report compiled by retired judge John Gillen, which was commissioned in the wake of the high-profile rape trial in Belfast last year involving former Ulster rugby players Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding who were acquitted of all charges.

Gillen said that there was a compelling argument to give greater anonymity to alleged victims of rape, and also strong evidence to restrict public admission to these trials while maintaining access for the press.

He said: “Giving evidence in court is a difficult enough task without being exposed to the cruel gaze of packed courthouses where the spectators attend at least partly to hear the salacious details from humiliated witnesses.”

The retired judge said that the fear of “shame and long-lasting humiliation” in local communities was a “real deterrent” against coming forward in a place as small as Northern Ireland. 

He also said that naming the accused – as was the case in the trial involving Jackson and Olding – could indirectly lead to the alleged victim being identified in public. In Ireland, neither the alleged victim or accused can be legally named while the trial is ongoing. That is not the case in Northern Ireland, where only the alleged victim retains anonymity.

However, Gillen pointed out: “In small jurisdictions such as Northern Ireland, like the rest of Ireland, in small local towns everyone knows everyone, so naming the accused is tantamount to naming the complainant in the context of crimes where 90% (and in England and Wales, reportedly 88%) of serious sexual offences are acquaintance attacks.

For some complainants, including some to whom we spoke, anonymity for the accused may generate greater confidence in the process as they may believe that there is less likelihood of their identity becoming public through jigsaw identification.

The judge also pointed to a “troublingly low” conviction rate in serious sexual offences cases. The conviction rate in cases of sexual offences before the Crown Court was 63.8% in 2017/18, down from 73.8% in 2016/17. The conviction rate for non-sexual offences is 88.2%.

On issues around identifying alleged victims on social media and jurors seeing information about their case online, Gillen said that current laws need to be augmented with new offences and new ways of enforcement. 

“There should be specific legislation targeted at jurors’ behaviour in relation to social media during trials as occurs in other jurisdictions,” he said.

Of more immediate need, which requires no further delay, is to consider the introduction of written and or video instructions to jurors at the outset of the trial of the very serious consequences for both the trial process and them personally if they search the Internet for information on the trial before them.

The review was compiled following a public consultation with engaged with victims, human rights groups, the police and those with legislative responsibility. It also examined precedence in other jurisdictions.

The recommendations have been given to Northern Ireland’s Criminal Justice Board. 

Gillen concluded: “As a society, we have to decide whether we are serious about addressing the problems that exist in our criminal justice system in dealing with serious sexual crime.”