Handbook on Sexual Violence (25 page)

1. Location Total Withdrawn Refused Undertaking Order Dealt Orders disposals made made with with
   

   ex-parte
   power
   

   of arrest
   

   England
   

   

   and Wales 94 4 1 1 86 55 71
   

   Source
   : Ministry of Justice (2009)
   

   Table 4.7
   Estimates for forced marriage, FGM and trafficking
   

   Form of violence	Highest estimate	Lowest estimate
   Forced marriage	5,000–8,000 1	1,600 2
   159 3
   <15 FGM risk	24,000 4	16,000 5
   FGM annual cases	3,000–4,000 6	3,000–4,000 6
   FGM total	279,500 7	66,000 8
   273,500 9
   Honour crimes	18 11	18 11
   Incidents/offences	256 10	132 10
   Honour murders	12 12	10 13
   Trafficking	4,000 14	164 16

   1,450
   15
   71
   17
   

   42
   18
   

   

   Sources
   :
   

   1. DCSF (2009). Numbers refer to estimated prevalence.
      

   2. FMU (no year); HM Government (2009d). Number refers to annual number of cases reported to the Forced Marriage Unit.
      

   3. Home Office recorded crime statistics 2008/2009.
      

   4. Dorkenoo
      et al
      . 2007. Number refers to girls under 15 at risk of FGM in the UK. 5. EVAW (2007).
      

1. Sleator (2003).
   

2. Kwateng-Kluvitse (2004).
   

3. HM Government (2009c); HM Government (2009a).
   

4. Dorkenoo
   et al
   . (2007).
   

5. HM Government (2009a).
   

6. CPS (2008). Prosecuted cases over a nine-month period in four CPS areas.
   

7. HM Government (2009a).
   

13 Meetoo and Mirza (2007).

1. HM Government (2009c); Zimmerman
   et al
   . (2006a); Zimmerman
   et al
   . (2006b). Estimated number of trafficked women in the UK 2003.
   

2. Kelly and Regan (2000); HM Government (2009c). Estimated numbers in 1998. 16. UKHTC (2009).
   

1. Kelly and Regan (2000).
   

2. Home Office (2009b) Recorded crime statistics. Annual average 2005–2009.
   

Developing indicators of justice: attrition in rape cases

Using sources of data such as those discussed above, indicators can be derived which enable monitoring of changes in the justice system. One example is rates of attrition, used in examining the concept of a ‘justice gap’. The ‘justice gap’ is defined by the House of Commons Justice Committee (2009: 11, note

28) as: ‘the difference between the number of crimes which are recorded and the number which result in their perpetrator being brought to justice’. However, it could be argued that the ‘true’ starting point of the gap is possibly ‘earlier’ in the process, i.e. the number of crimes committed, as estimated by surveys, as opposed to the number recorded. These statistics on the number of crimes committed relative to those brought to justice are used to calculate the extent of attrition, which can be used as a measure of the ‘justice gap’. Attrition refers to those cases dropping out of the criminal justice process. Cases may ‘drop out’ for a number of reasons at various stages, including the decision of the victim not to report a crime and discontinuance by the prosecutors (Kelly
et al
. 2005).

The terms ‘attrition’ and ‘conviction’ are sometimes used interchangeably,

or at least confused, in debates over ‘attrition rates’ and ‘conviction rates’. The conviction rate refers to the proportion of crimes committed that result in conviction. Following this definition, a higher or increased rate of conviction implies improvement (i.e. a greater proportion of cases are resulting in conviction) while a lower rate implies deterioration (i.e. a lower proportion of cases are resulting in conviction). If the meaning of ‘attrition’ is the fall out or the extent to which cases are lost before being brought to justice then, strictly speaking, the attrition rate refers to the proportion of cases that ‘fall out’ over the course of the criminal justice process. Using this definition, then we would refer to say a ‘70 per cent attrition rate’ where we mean that 70 per cent of crimes are not brought to justice. A decline in the attrition rate to 60 per cent would imply an improvement, in that a lower proportion of cases were dropping out; an increase in the attrition rate to 80 per cent would imply deterioration, in that a higher proportion of cases were dropping out. Following this definition, we can use ‘points of attrition’ to refer to those stages at which cases are lost, for example, between reporting and prosecution for reasons such as insufficient evidence. However, in some studies (e.g. Lovett and Kelly 2009), the figure attached to the term attrition is the same as the figure that others call ‘conviction’. This is a little confusing, so we adopt the practice outlined here.

Conviction rates can be defined differently depending on the start and end points of their measurement, and there is currently no agreement on how they should be calculated. This leads to various figures being used as ‘conviction rates’. There are at least three potential starting points for measuring conviction rates. The most commonly practised method is to start with the number of crimes that are recorded by the police. A second method, and one recommended by most of those consulted by Alkire
et al
. (2009) for the Equality Measurement Framework, is the number of crimes reported in the British Crime Survey. The third is the number of crimes prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service, a method used by the CPS (2009b) and recommended by the Stern Review (2010). There are also different potential end points of the process. These include: ‘conviction’ as charged (e.g. conviction for rape following a charge for rape), which is the most commonly understood meaning (and used by, for example, Lovett and Kelly 2009); and conviction which includes convictions for a related offence, for example where someone charged with rape is convicted for the lesser crime of sexual assault. This end point is used by the CPS (e.g. CPS 2009b). In addition there is the category of ‘sanction/detection’ which is a police category for when offences are ‘cleared up’, and includes, in addition to the formal charging of a suspect, police cautions and offences that have been taken into consideration (Walker
et al
. 2009). The CPS is responsible for the prosecution of criminal cases in England and Wales and, in all but minor cases, determines the charge.

The most comprehensive way to calculate the conviction rate would be to use the earliest possible point at which the numbers of crimes are measured: the national surveys of crime victims. The next most comprehensive would be to use the number of crimes recorded by the police. A narrower way is to measure it from the point of prosecution. The first produces the worst (or lowest) conviction rate, the last the best (or highest). There are a number of issues that are relevant to the selection of the starting point. These include: the relatively small number of some of the specific crimes against women and minority groups so that the numbers in the BCS do not always constitute a statistically reliable base; differences between the concepts and categories that are used to measure crime at different points within the criminal justice system (CJS) and BCS; whether data is collected and disaggregated by equality groups; and the different responsibilities of different agencies in the CJS.

In selecting the end point, the strictest (and probably the most popularly understood) way to calculate the conviction rate is to limit it to convictions as charged. This produces the lowest conviction rate. The inclusion of conviction for lesser offences loosens the meaning, and ‘improves’ the conviction rate. The category of ‘sanction detection’ is a much wider one. Including convictions for lesser offences in the conviction rate is common practice across the CJS, and not only for equality issues; the differences in the way conviction rates are calculated often reflect the different priorities of different CJS agencies. Feist
et al
. (2007: 91) note that ‘the oft-reported conviction rate for rape offences of approximately 6% is, in itself, accurate in that it correctly compares convictions for
rape
against offences
for rape
’. They also note that ‘There is, of course, a debate to be had about whether it is more or less appropriate to include convictions for lesser offences in the calculation of a

conviction rate for rape.’ They conclude by recommending moving to ‘report on both figures to give the public as informed a picture as possible’.

Several different figures have been offered as the conviction rate for rape.

Table 4.8
Reports, prosecutions and convictions for rape, England and Wales

Source
: Table calculations based on Lovett and Kelly (2009)

Table
4.8 shows that the conviction rate for rape, calculated by Lovett and Kelly (2009) as the percentage of recorded crimes of rape that end with a conviction for rape, was 6 per cent in 2006 in England and Wales (although Lovett and Kelly prefer to call this attrition).

Our own calculations, drawing on data published by the Home Office on the number of recorded crimes (Walker
et al
. 2009) and by the Ministry of Justice (2010a) on the number of offenders found guilty or cautioned, show that the percentage of rapes recorded as crimes that led to a conviction for rape in 2007 was 7.0 per cent and in 2008 was 7.6 per cent (see Table 4.9).

Table 4.9
Rape of a female: number of offences, sanction detections and number of offenders found guilty or cautioned for rape of a female, England and Wales