Unreliable Witnesses: Then and Now

In "Ashes to Ashes" (BBC1), the following dialogue occurs when a prostitute is claiming she was raped:

 

Alex: When they say it's difficult for rape victims to be believed, I wonder why?
Gene: She gets paid for having sex.
Alex: It's not about sex, is it? It's about control, and power, and revenge.
Gene: Maybe tell me about it some other time, like when I'm in a coma, or when I'm dead.
Alex: To the interview room? Where's the rape suite?
Gene: Rape suite? Is that with or without a minibar?

 

That is contrasting the culture of 1981 with 2008.

 

It is an interesting contrast, and shows how attitudes have changed. The rape victim in 1981 would be interviewed in a normal police interview room, and have to stand up in court and face all the intimidation of those surroundings. It is perhaps no wonder that cases such as at Blanche Pierre care home were dropped because of a feeling that the case would not succeed, that the witnesses would not be credible enough, despite the later damming report of 1991 that the carers there committed "gross acts of physical and psychological abuse". The culture of 1991, like that of 1981, regarded evidence of victims as being  "unreliable", and therefore unable to stand up in court. How far Jersey was adrift from prevailing practice in the UK, how far stuck in the 1981 time warp, has yet to be judged, but it should be noted that discounting of evidence was not unique to Jersey.

 

Back in the 1970s and 1980s, when the abuse at Haut de la Garenne was at its height, a culture in which victims' evidence was discounted was also widespread.

 

The Bull report of 2001 (still not available to the general public, but released to news media) condemned policies, staff and facilities at Les Chenes, the island's secure children's home and school, and singled out the "Grand Prix"  practice of locking all children in the secure unit in isolation for 24 hours as a routine part of the admission process as "most unacceptable". Yet it seems likely this remained in place until 2006.

 

What is clear is that such practices are no longer acceptable, and the culture in which victims claims were swept under the carpet, or were deemed to be sufficiently unreliable to stand up in court has gone. 

 

One strong method of discrimination by historians is multiple attestation by independent witnesses. When it is not just one individual, but more than one, independently verifying the procedures of abuse, whether at Haut de La Garenne, at Blanche Pierre, or at Greenfields, then it is clear that there is reliable evidence.

 

"Ashes to Ashes" shows us both the past, and how the present is better than before. Jersey now - only recently - has the facility for victims of abuse and rape to give evidence in court by a video link. Things are moving in the right direction. But more can be done - as Esther Rantzen pointed out - we still do not have a sex offenders register. And official reports must be made available to the general public. Lessons need to be learnt, and humility is always needed to learn difficult lessons.