Victims in rape cases must not feel like they are on trial, Burnham says

Andy Burnham said rape trials should better support complainants in court. The government should keep examining courtroom procedures and make sure women do not feel they are being judged instead of the accused. He linked this to encouraging more women to report rape and improving conviction rates.

His comments followed concerns about evidence reported from Russell Brand’s trial. Defence barrister Ian Winter KC reportedly told jurors that complainants had not “resisted, screamed or even tried to leave”. Metropolitan Police chief Sir Mark Rowley said such arguments came close to victim blaming.

Burnham did not announce a specific reform. He said the government would look closely at the police chief’s comments and would not rule anything out. BBC News understood that no immediate plans existed to change the law, while other figures proposed clearer jury guidance in every rape trial.

Russell Brand was found guilty of one count of rape and three counts of sexual assault. The verdict followed a four-week trial in London. The jury reached its decisions after deliberating for eight-and-a-half hours.

Brand was found not guilty of two other counts of rape and one count of attempted indecent assault. The mixed verdict shows that jurors considered the individual charges separately rather than reaching one overall decision about the case. The article does not give further details about how jurors assessed each allegation.

Brand was refused bail and remained in custody over the weekend. He was expected to receive a substantial jail sentence on Monday. The article also reports that two women have made further rape allegations, and that Brand has been questioned by police while the Metropolitan Police investigation remains ongoing.

In this context, victim blaming means suggesting that a complainant caused doubt about their allegation through their behaviour. The focus moves from whether the accused committed an offence to whether the complainant acted like a stereotypical victim. Sir Mark Rowley said some reported courtroom arguments came close to this.

Rape myths are common but inaccurate beliefs about sexual violence. They can include assumptions that a genuine victim will always resist, scream, try to escape, or show trauma in an expected way. Misconceptions about sexual violence are broader false ideas about consent, fear, and how people may respond during or after an assault.

These ideas matter because they can influence how jurors interpret evidence. Claire Waxman said trials should challenge myths and misconceptions, while Anna Soubry argued judges already give firm directions on these issues. The article presents a debate about whether current guidance is sufficient.

Not resisting, screaming, or leaving does not necessarily show consent because people can react to danger in different ways. Fear, shock, confusion, pressure, or a perceived threat may affect what someone does. A person might become quiet or comply without freely agreeing to sexual activity.

The article highlights this issue through evidence reported from Russell Brand’s trial. His defence barrister was reported to have told jurors that complainants had not “resisted, screamed or even tried to leave”. Sir Mark Rowley warned that treating those facts as undermining a case could come close to victim blaming.

The key mechanism is that behaviour alone cannot provide a complete answer about consent. Jurors must consider the evidence in the case, rather than applying a fixed picture of how a rape victim should respond. The article says judges give directions on these points, but debate continues about whether stronger guidance is needed.

Judges are expected to help jurors assess evidence without relying on inaccurate ideas about rape. This includes explaining that a complainant’s failure to resist, scream, or leave does not automatically undermine the allegation. The purpose is to support fair reasoning about behaviour and trauma.

Anna Soubry, a barrister who often defends rape and sexual-offence cases, said every judge in those cases must give, and does give, a firm direction on these points. She said juries should be trusted to understand the nature of sexual offences. Her comments challenge the suggestion that such guidance is absent.

Sir Mark Rowley and Victims’ Commissioner Claire Waxman argued that rape myths must be actively challenged during trials. Rowley supported a legal duty requiring directions in every rape trial. The government has said it will keep looking at trial procedures, but the article reports no current plan to change the law.

The proposed legal change would require judges to give juries directions about rape myths and misconceptions in every rape trial. It is intended to make sure jurors do not treat a complainant’s particular response as proof that an allegation is unreliable. The proposal seeks consistent guidance across cases.

Sir Mark Rowley supported the idea after hearing reports from Russell Brand’s trial. He objected to suggestions that a rape victim’s failure to resist, scream, or leave should somehow weaken the case. Claire Waxman similarly said trials must challenge myths and false assumptions about rape and trauma.

This proposal is not yet government policy. Andy Burnham said he would study the issue and would not rule out changes, but BBC News understood there were no plans at that point to change the law. Anna Soubry said judges already give firm directions, creating a debate over whether a new legal duty is necessary.

A criminal trial must protect the accused person’s right to have the evidence tested fairly. The prosecution must prove the charge, and jurors must reach their own decision without prejudice. At the same time, fairness does not require jurors to accept inaccurate beliefs about rape or demand a stereotypical response from a complainant.

Judicial directions are the main mechanism described in the article. Judges explain how juries should approach rape myths and a complainant’s behaviour. Anna Soubry said judges already give firm directions and that juries can understand sexual offences. Sir Mark Rowley wants this guidance required in every rape trial.

The balance remains under debate. Stronger directions could make expectations clearer without deciding the verdict for jurors. However, the article does not report a settled government plan. Burnham said he would examine the issue, while the government also needs to preserve fair trials and trust in jury decisions.

Reducing victim blaming could make rape trials feel fairer and less hostile to complainants. Claire Waxman said victims need confidence that justice is based on evidence rather than myths and false assumptions about rape and trauma. Better courtroom guidance could also help jurors assess behaviour more accurately.

The possible mechanism is clearer, consistent directions about rape myths in every trial. These directions could challenge assumptions that a person must resist, scream, or leave to have been raped. Burnham connected the wider agenda with encouraging more women to report rape and raising the conviction rate, while Rowley said inaccurate statements should not undermine a case.

The effects are not certain. More guidance might support confidence, but trials must still protect the accused and leave verdicts to juries. The article does not say that any change has been adopted or prove that reform would increase convictions. The government is considering the issue rather than announcing a specific procedure.