Vera Baird DBE KC

Chair Criminal Cases Review Commission. Member Women’s Justice Bd.
Ex Victims’ Commissioner, Solicitor Gen & PCC. Fellow St Hilda’s Oxford. Writer. Labour Party

Category: ARTICLES

  • Huffington Post Article (9th June). Responding to the Director of Public Prosecutions Rape Action Plan.

    Today’s Rape Action Plan from Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, is yet another valiant attempt to improve the conviction rate for sexual offences which is, in reality, still held back by out of date rape myths which prevail at court and which remain influential in the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.

    There was an upward trend in the rate of conviction for cases that got to court for about seven years as police and CPS made progress in training their staff and improving witness care. However, the increase was never huge and it fell sharply from 63%-60% during the past year.

    There must be a fear that similarly, the recent increase in the number of complainants who have the confidence to report rape will go into reverse if the conviction rate continues to go down, making the point that they are unlikely to get justice.

    The police and CPS training which brought those original improvements was substantial. However it seems only to have got them over some of the rape myths that used to block prosecutions, leaving them locked into others. A letter read this morning on the Today programme made that point. It showed CPS explaining to a complainant that the underwear she was wearing was one of the reasons why they wouldn’t prosecute her allegation of rape. Particularly shocking is that the letter must have been written by a dedicated rape prosecutor since it is a decade since CPS allowed a non-specialist to manage a rape case.

    Alison Saunders is therefore right to focus in her Action Plan on yet more guidance for prosecutors, research into why victims withdraw, ensuring legal advocates have the right skills, regional workshops for CPS/police to strengthen learning around investigations and prosecutions and improving oversight and accountability for police decisions to take no further action. It is rightly too all directed towards acquiring and using a better understanding of what consent means and on shifting the focus from the credibility of the victim to the overall allegation and the conduct of the accused.

    The continuing impact of these out of date myths even on trained police and prosecutors leaves little hope that untrained jurors will do better. And if myths and prejudices influence outcomes at court, that will cause injustice and will re-inforce their use in police and CPS decisions about which future cases to take forward. So while the DPP re-trains her staff in the significance of factors such as underwear, it is equally important that every rape jury has explained to them the prejudicial effect of similar myths.

    Happily, the Crown Court judges have long had a folio of directions in place to neutralise most of the well-known myths and prejudices in trials. It was the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, who first appreciated that the training that the judges themselves get about myths and stereotypes had to be passed on to juries if rape trials were going to be fair.

    A good example is when a rape complaint is made sometime after the event. The defence will say that the sex was consensual, that rape is so nasty that anyone would complain of it immediately and that the delay in complaint shows that she is lying about lack of consent. In the absence of any different understanding jurors might accept that argument. Yet judges know from experience, including around guilty pleas, that sexual assault victims frequently do not complain at once. So they can direct a jury that while some people may speak to the first person they see, others will, through shame and shock take far longer to tell anyone what has happened. Judges will, in that way, bust the myth that a late complaint is necessarily a false one and leave the facts in each case, fairly set out for the jury to decide.

    There are directions similarly to deal with notions such as because the complainant wore provocative clothing, he/she must have wanted sex; since the complainant got drunk in male company, he/she must have been prepared for sex; that an attractive male does not need to rape; a complainant in a relationship with the alleged attacker is likely to have consented; that rape does not take place without physical resistance from the victim and usually causes injury and that rape by a stranger is necessarily more traumatic than rape by someone the victim trusted.

    However, many victims and rape support groups would say that despite these directions there is often aggressive cross examination in rape trials, which relies on these very myths. That can undermine the quality of a complainant\’s evidence and prejudice the jury long before the summing up when the directions are given. Clearly the point of Judges knowing that rape myths can prejudice trials should be so they banish them from the process all together, not allow their use by lawyers and then try to explain them away.

    There is no DPP figure who can oversee and direct the Courts as Alison Saunders can give leadership to her prosecutors. There is no Court Inspectorate who can monitor performance as HMIC does for the police. In Northumbria, we will fill this gap by establishing a panel of volunteer Court Observers, probably with a complement of former victims, who will follow every sexual assault case at Newcastle Crown Court to see whether the courts are doing their share of ridding rape trials of pernicious myths as the CPS and the police are encouraged and exhorted once again, to do theirs.

    They will look at other aspects of the trial too, such as whether Independent Sexual Violence Advisers (ISVAs) who support complainants throughout sexual abuse cases are allowed to accompany them in court; how Crown Prosecutors relate to complainants who, since police are trained to give evidence and defendants prepare their case with their barristers, are the only ones unprepared for what is to come and whether questioning about previous sexual history still haunts these trials. We will also look to establish our very own Police Rape Scrutiny Panel to scrutinise case files which have failed to attain the requisite evidential level of prosecution or where a prosecution has failed and look for lessons to learn.

    If we are to continue to increase the proper conviction rate in rape and to prevent a consequent decline in complainant’s confidence to report, all the criminal justice agencies must play a role in ridding these trials, once and for all of the prejudice and myth which today’s announcement shows are alive and well in the police and CPS. What happens in trials can either reinforce these myths or render them redundant

  • Vera visits Newcastle’s Angelou Centre

    Everyone I have spoken to, locally, about violence against women admires the Angelou Centre, which is just moving to bigger premises in Newcastle’s West End. (more…)

  • Everywoman Safe Everywhere: Labour’s Commission into Women’s Safety – Interim report

    Everywoman Safe Everywhere, Labour’s Commission on Women’s Safety is a consultation established in November 2011 in response to concerns that, not only were government policies disproportionately impacting upon women economically, but may be risking their safety too. Yvette Cooper asked Vera Baird, former Solicitor General with a strong record working to reduce violence against women, to chair this new Women’s Safety Commission assisted by Kate Green and Stella Creasy.

    In the last three months the Commission has held 14 evidence gathering sessions in different towns and cities; has engaged with more than 100 organisations and experts, and received upwards of 160 submissions from women and men around the country on the status of services which safeguard the personal safety of women. It has also analysed up-to-date background literature.

    A wide range and breadth of issues were discussed, but a number of consistent factors were repeatedly raised. In the course of these discussions, participants have raised many distinct and diverse concerns, from the provision of services for those who are victims of rape or domestic violence, to the impact of cuts in street lighting, station staffing and car parking charges on how safe women feel.

    Yvette Cooper MP, Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary and Shadow Minister for Women & Equalities, said:

    “These findings are serious and deeply concerning. They show the Tory-led Government is out of touch with women\’s lives and has no idea of the damage it is doing to women\’s safety.

    “We have already uncovered strong evidence showing women are being hardest hit by the Government’s economic policies  but what has become clear is that women’s safety is also being disproportionately affected.

    “The response to the Commission in its first three months has been extremely strong, and its first report makes powerful and worrying reading – it details a disproportionate 31% cut in funding to refuges and services tackling domestic violence, 17,000 rape suspects being taken off the DNA database, chaotic changes to commissioning in the NHS, police and councils, street lights going off across the country and failure to deliver on a new stalking law.

    “This Government and this Prime Minister are blind to the needs of women. From family finances to street lighting, from tax credits to services to tackle domestic violence women are under pressure.

    “Rather than warm words tomorrow on International Women’s day the Prime Minister should commit to a full audit of the impact of his government’s decisions on women’s safety, with new safeguards to prevent vital services being badly hit. And he should agree to back our amendments in Parliament to introduce a new law on stalking to keep more women safe.

    Vera Baird QC, Chair of Everywoman safe everywhere: Labour’s commission on Women’s safety, said:

    “I have campaigned against violence against women for many years and played a role in the significant advances made by the last Labour Government in tackling it. However, the Commission’s first evidence session shocked me. Twelve national women’s organisations, ranging from Mumsnet to Women’s Aid, shared their recent experiences and painted a grim picture.

    “Refuge providers facing unprecedented financial pressure. 230 women fleeing violence being turned away on a typical day because of a lack of beds. Experienced Domestic Violence Co-ordinators being lost. Specialist Courts are under pressure. Streetlights are going out to the concern of women coming home late from work.

    “And most worryingly, a Government that doesn’t seem to have noticed the impact this is all having on the lives of ordinary women because it hasn’t conducted any analysis of the changes it is making.

    “Like many of the women who came to talk to us, I thought the time had long passed when the need for women\’s safety services could be called into question or their provision put into reverse. Women should never be trapped in a violent relationship or in a cycle of sexual abuse because of a lack of support; nor should they be worried walking home.

    “But our findings make me concerned that the clock is being turned back and women are now less confident that their needs  are even understood let alone being pursued by Government now.”

    You can read the first Interim Report (March 2012) here.

     

  • Checking the blind spot – Examining violence against women

    This piece appeared in Next Left on Friday, 10th February 2012:

    This is a guest post by Vera Baird. Vera is a member of the Fabian Society Executive Committee and Chair of the new Labour Commission on Women\’s Safety, commissioned by shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper.

    Yvette Cooper described this Government, whose first budget took 70% of its cuts from women and 30% from men, as having “a blind spot” about women. She seems to be right when one considers, not only economics, but also plans such as the deletion of 17,000 rape suspects from the DNA database, as it becomes ever clearer to police that rape is often a serial offence.

    Women’s organisations now fear that cumulatively, the Coalition’s policy, legislation and cuts are having a worrying impact on those services that work to protect women. We have found from our visits so far that these concerns are being backed up by facts from the frontline and illustrated by the experiences of the individuals we meet.

    Last week Professor Sylvia Walby, UNESCO Chair in Gender Research at Lancaster, published a report showing the “dramatic and uneven” impact of a national reduction of 31% in funding for local gender violence services last year. Smaller organizations have suffered on average 70% cuts, whilst those receiving over £100,000 lost 29%.

    Consequently, Women’s Aid have reported that up to 230 women fleeing domestic violence were turned away because of a lack of accommodation on a typical day in 2011. Eaves, which also provides refuges, has been forced to advise woman on how to minimise risk while sleeping on the streets or at Occupy camps.

    Research by the Women’s Institute shows that women will be disproportionately harmed by cuts to legal aid, while Rights of Women demonstrate that 49% of current service users would not be eligible at all under the new rules, despite Justice Minister Kenneth Clarke repeating that such women will still get legal help. Violent men will not get legal aid either and, by handling their own cases at court, will get a state-sponsored opportunity to abuse their victim further by cross-examining them face to face.

    A poll from training specialists, CAADA shows that, in 2011, 2 of the 8 major providers of Independent Domestic Violence Advisers, who are widely credited with saving lives, faced cuts of 100%. 3 lost 40% and 2 more will lose a quarter. IMKAAN, with six specialist refuges for Black Asian and Minority Ethnic women, is being forced to close two and reduce capacity in two more.

    In Coventry, there is a 30% loss of floating support for survivors of violence. Cuts to housing benefit mean that a single woman under 35 who flees domestic abuse will only get the rent for a room in a shared property. A correspondent to our website says, “The Suzie Project in my home town has lost its funding, so we’ve had to end our group. Cutting funding to projects which support survivors of rape leave people like me feeling all alone.”

    In one East Midlands ward, police identified domestic violence perpetrators and knocked on their doors on the nights when they were typically violent, to reassure their partners and deter these men. This preventive policing measure stopped because of officer shortages. Professor Walby found that 78% of perpetrator programmes had cut the numbers of clients they could assist.

    Half of councils who responded to a Labour Party survey in November were reducing their street lighting to save cash. Local Government Secretary, Eric Pickles calls this “sensible,” while, on the other hand, the Police Federation said “the lighter an area is, the safer it is.”

    Lighting cuts affect everyone in our communities, but Netta e mailed our website to say that it is women who are often left feeling more insecure:

    “Cuts to street lighting – imposed by Suffolk Country Council – are happening here in Ipswich. Female friends … tell me [and I can confirm from having looked at a few] that it is quite scary. If you don\’t have a car, can\’t afford taxis and are used to walking around your own town in safety, it does make quite a difference having this \”curfew\” imposed.”

    A national non-political women’s group told us that violence is the pre-occupation of its website traffic and women say that, as resources are cut back, they would not know how to leave a violent home if they needed to do so. Professor Walby writes: “These cuts to provision are expected to lead to increases in this violence.”

    Half way through the Commission’s inquiry, we are beginning to understand her fears.

    Professor Walby’s report, Measuring the impact of cuts in public expenditure on the provision of services to prevent violence against women and girls (February 2012), can be found here.

  • The Infidelity defence to murder

    Read Vera’s article intended for the Guardian ‘Comment is Free’ section. (they published an early draft instead of the final version that appears here):

    Parliament made clear three years ago that sexual infidelity should not be allowed as a defence for murder, whatever the circumstances. A partner’s affair could no longer be treated by Courts as a defensible reason to lose self control and kill.

    However, giving judgment, in three domestic murder appeals last week, Lord Chief Justice Judge ruled that: ‘Where sexual infidelity is integral to and forms an essential part of the context the prohibition does not operate to exclude it’. It seems that Parliament says infidelity doesn’t count and the Court says it does.

    Killing a wife for infidelity was “classic” provocation before 2009. The courts saw case after case in which men blamed their partner’s adultery for making them kill her and claimed manslaughter instead of murder and a significant reduction in sentence.

    In the case of Smith in 1999 Lord Hoffman acknowledged that “finding a wife in adultery” was a recognised justification for killing in a loss of control. He warned that “Male possessiveness and jealousy should not today be an acceptable reason for the loss of self control leading to homicide”

    Still, in 2008 Justice for Women asked a senior judge why he had accepted a plea of guilty to manslaughter when a man had furiously stabbed his wife. “Because it was classic provocation!” he said, ”She was leaving him for another man.“

    In 2009, the Coroners and Justice Act was passed, severely to restrict the loss of control defence to murder, and it specifically banned infidelity from being claimed as a trigger – it was contrary to public policy for it to justify murder, any longer.

    Last week, Lord Judge spoke in studiedly gender-neutral terms but that does not alter the history that it is primarily men who have killed their unfaithful partners and claimed the defence. Women who campaigned for this change are devastated at how quickly the courts have undermined it.

    Although he accepted that the statute bans infidelity as a trigger, he regards it as unwise. Lord Judge reasoned that every circumstance surrounding a killing has to be considered and if infidelity was present it might have made other triggering conduct harder to tolerate. So there is no defence of loss of control through infidelity, but there is one of lost control through infidelity plus-other-triggering conduct, for instance she was unfaithful plus she goaded me about it.

    But the statute says:
    “In deciding whether a loss of self control had a qualifying trigger, the fact that a thing done or said constituted sexual infidelity is to be disregarded”.

    So, unwise or not, how perfectly clear law has been judicially evaded ought to be an issue taken forward by the Crown on appeal to the Supreme Court.

    However, this is just one clause that specifically outlaws infidelity and only infidelity as triggering conduct. Threatening to leave, goading about poor sexual performance and a thousand other kinds of provoking conduct were never excluded, by specific clauses in the new law, as triggers for loss of control. Yet they are all capable of provoking the jealousy and possessiveness Lord Hoffman deplored and they have all been as frequently claimed as defences under the old law of provocation.

    So, the overall scheme of the new law is to make it significantly harder for any of these acts to be claimed successfully as a defence for killing the person who did them. Whatever is claimed to have provoked the loss of control will not be a defence unless it was “extremely grave”, giving the defendant “a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged” and was conduct that would make someone with “a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint” similarly kill the victim.

    These are all far higher tests than before. In two of the three appeals in this judgment, the clause excluding infidelity was irrelevant because the defendants had killed their partners for trying to leave. Under the old law they might have been acquitted but both juries rejected the defence under the new narrowly drawn criteria and the Court of Appeal agreed.

    In the third case, the trial judge banned the plea of infidelity, using the exclusion clause that the Court of Appeal dislikes and that defendant must now be retried with the defence allowed. Of course he too may have been convicted has his case gone forward. We shall soon see what a jury, properly directed on the new law, makes of killing as a response to infidelity.

    This statute markedly improves too, the position of people who kill their abusive partners. For the first time ever, if they do so through a loss of control caused by fear of serious violence, they have a statutory defence to murder. The majority of people benefitting from this will be women for whom the old law of provocation simply did not work. It required that the defendant was angered to kill and abused women were not angry but afraid.

    Overall this statute should end the injustice that angry people who kill their partners are acquitted of murder and frightened people who killed their abusers are convicted of it. This judgment, seen against the overall legislative scheme is a totemic blow but not a mortal one.

  • Women turned away from refuge shelters told to sleep in Occupy camps

    The Labour Commission on Women’s Safety began gathering evidence just before Christmas. My colleagues, MPs Kate Green, Stella Creasy and I, met in London with twelve leading national women’s organisations to scope out what our inquiry needs to cover.

    The shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, has asked us to produce a provisional report by International Women’s Day in March about whether, and if so how, coalition decisions, policies and legislation are impacting on women’s safety.

    Read the rest of Vera\’s piece in Left Foot Forward.

  • The Labour Women’s Safety Commission

    Making women safe is something on which the Labour Government spent time and resources. Now, the well-known concern that the Coalition Government is hurting women disproportionately in the purse compared to the impact on the male wallet, has turned a more worrying corner. Because the cuts in public spending, legal aid, local government and the police – to mention just a few – appear not to be being assessed for their cumulative impact on women’s personal safety.

    Street lights being turned off and poorer public transport make women anxious, whilst police cuts could lead to fewer specialist officers to support women who are raped or assaulted and will see 16000 less police on the beat. The closure of many domestic violence services and the end of legal aid for family law may mean that abused women have no way out of dangerous relationships. Job cuts in the public sector are turning the clock back and women who want to work may instead be caught in poverty and powerlessness at the kitchen sink.

    This is not a scare story. Serious concerns are being voiced by innumerable women’s organisations as diverse as the Women’s Institute, which has produced a seminal paper on the impact of the legal aid cuts, and the Eaves/Poppy project, which has pointed to high numbers of women suffering stalking and so-called honour crimes with nowhere to turn for help. The overall true impact is hard to measure or even to grasp on the general information that is available nationally now.

    It is unlikely that a responsible Government would deliberately expose half of the population to danger. But the last 18 months has shown with stunning clarity that this almost wholly male, boys’ public school-dominated Government has little cultural affinity with women’s issues and no understanding of the impact of their decisions on women’s lives.

    Hence they attempted to give anonymity to rape defendants, 50 years after the Heilbron Review rejected it and when the real problem is that the trial system doesn’t give women the confidence to prosecute. Kenneth Clarke insinuated that ‘real’ rape was being attacked by a stranger, when 80% of cases are by partners, ex partners or acquaintances.

    He proposed 50% sentence cuts for men who plead guilty practically on arrest, at the very time when the complaint to conviction rate – which improves as a case progresses – is just 7%. As it becomes ever more obvious to police and the courts that rape is frequently a serial offence, the government plans to delete 17000 rape suspects from the DNA database, removing any chance of a match in future cases.

    Understanding the need to be sympathetic, the Government announced that victims of domestic violence will be exceptions to the ban on family legal aid. However the definition of domestic violence is tighter than the well-used ACPO one, and the evidence required to prove abuse is narrowed to exclude almost everybody who hasn’t got a court order already. When Parliament debated this move, the ConDems talked constantly about “false claims” of domestic abuse, not about safeguarding the vulnerable. Most estimates are that 80% of women who would currently get help through legal aid will be left to fend for themselves when they are trying to get out of a violent relationship, which is well-known to be the most dangerous time, as domestic violence escalates when the perpetrator tries desperately to regain control.

    Equally worrying is that, by removing family law from the scope of legal aid, violent men will handle their own cases at court, getting a state-sponsored opportunity to abuse their victims further by cross-examining them face to face.

    But recent spending and legislative decisions by the Government aren’t just impacting on women in abusive relationships. They also have worrying implications for the safety of a much wider group of women too.

    Over half of local authorities who responded to a Labour Party survey last month were reducing their street lighting to save cash; 98 out of 133 councils approached by the Times were scaling back lighting or considering doing so. While Local Government and Communities Secretary Eric Pickles calls this“ a sensible decision” the Police Federation says:

    “The lighter an area is the safer it is—the cuts could well mean that back streets and outer areas become a more fertile area for criminals to become more active in.”

    All these potentially damaging changes are already in progress. There are additional worries about who will commission domestic abuse support services when Primary Care Trusts are scrapped; what priorities new Police Commissioners will set for spending after November 2012. As women’s incomes are squeezed and men also lose work, the links which exist between economic stress and domestic violence suggest that women will become more likely to be victimised, at a time when they are less resourced to get away- a potently poisonous combination.

    Although some work has been done to audit the cumulative impact of these recent changes by False Economy and Voluntary Sector Cuts, there is not, as yet, a clear picture. Yvette Cooper has asked me to chair a Women’s Safety Commission, to go nationwide and to examine with speed and thoroughness the impact of spending and policy changes, as well as to consider legislative measures that could safeguard women’s safety, despite the downturn and the dearth of public funds. We will be coming shortly to a place near you, but in the meantime, click here to go to the website and send us your views. We need your help to find out whether these widely held concerns are better, or worse, than reality.

  • Justice for Jane Clough

    Vera is pleased to have written a new clause into the Legal Aid Bill for the \’Justice for Jane Clough\’ Campaign and got the Shadow Justice Minister to propose it in the House of Commons. \”The Government has accepted it in principle but it must go into this Bill and not be delayed because it will save lives\”

     

     

    In late October 2011, Vera took part in a discussion of the case on BBC Radio 4 with Jane\’s parents.

    Listen to the piece on Womans Hour

  • WOMEN IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: PRACTITIONERS,PERPETRATORS,PREY AND PRISONERS

    Annual Lecture to Northern Ireland Medico-Legal Society

    Belfast  March 18th 2011
    Intriguing Title expressed with the Artful Aid of Apt Alliteration
    At the risk of sounding vulgar I think we have one P too many in there.
    Think we can put together Perpetrators and Prisoners — though I cant manage a word that does that.
    And let’s start there because there are far too many of the latter – women in prison.
    I know you have some specific and very contemporary issues in Northern Ireland.
    Start In Uk between 1995 and 2005 the proportion of women being sentenced to immediate custody went up by 69% Rates of self harm in particular  there were  6 suicides at Styal  women’s prison in Cheshire
    Was a serious concern for a government that was tough on crime and had nothing against imprisonment but since the consequences were so appalling it appeared they were missing a trick about what was causing their crime. It was also the first gov. To have nearly 100 women MPs  and they took interest in womens issues.
    Outside gov was Fawcett and inside now well-known Corston Review of women with vulnerabilities in the criminal justice system.

    Numbers of women in prison compared to men then and now
    Steady at around 85000 and 4-4300
    Women have always been a small percentage of a)criminals- 90% male perpetrators and b) prisoners
    Corston and Fawcett found similarly that the attitude of the CJS was that they were rare and the system was designed for men. Women were an add on, not recognised as a community within the cjs which had any separate needs or required different provision.
    There was no evidence that female offending had got worse – to justify the increase in numbers. So why were the courts not using community punishments? A look at those demonstrated that there was a range of well-thought out provision about anger management, drug rehabilitation, skills monitoring and training availability  but all designed for the majority – men. This doesn’t mean women were not being sent to prison and not sentenced to them. It meant that they didn’t work because they were inappropriate. So women went up the ladder of offending to prison.
    Fawcett and especially Corston made 43 recommendations all but one of which UK gov accepted. I was on the COrston response group of Ministers.
    Change:
    1. gender specific standards for women’s prisons not adapted from those from Dartmoor – everything from clothing to sanitary protection to medical care has a gender based standard;
    2. demeaning practice of routine strip searching has gone and   3.There is cross departmental Criminal Justice Women’s Strategy Unit in government which is still working; integration of prison medical service into NHS has brought up standards of medical care especially  for mental health needs.
    Overall the big recommendation was that women perpetrators in and out of prison require specific provision for their needs. Different from that for men.It is a statement obvious once it has been made but unrealised it meant that cj system treated everyone as standard ie a man.
    Exemplify tha prisons are designed for male needs. They are secure to avoid escape and regimes designed to minimise opportunities for violence and the impact of it
    Men who are disturbed fight, women self- harm. And as Jean Corston “ women don’t escape and if they do you will easily find them – they will be with their children”
    So a few years on from COrston and that understanding of the needs of women and with the Coalitions rehabilitation revolution and as you in NI look at how to deal with women who are currently imprisoned in Ash House linked to a YOI it is time to redouble the effort to change the way the cj system deals with women, and here is why using figures not form the COrston era but now.
    Start where COrston started -47% of self harming in prison was done by women who were only 5% of the prison population. More than one third (37%) of all female prisoners self harmed last year (7% of men)
    What offences put them into prison- it being to protect us from dangerous  Theft 34%
    63% for non-violent offences.  So short sentences are appropriate.
    62% less than 6 months and 72% less than one year
    Recidivism – Highest with women who had been sentenced to less than a year
    In UK 17700 children have mothers in prison at some time during each year.
    And there we look at who these women are

    •    mental ill-health (70% have 2 or more mental health disorders) and drug or alcohol abuse (70% needed clinical  de-tox on admission and 35% admitted to hazardous drinking) Higher than men
    •    many had had early lives in care;
    •    Less likely to have settled accommodation, experience of work or educational qualifications, and more likely to live on a very low income
    Overwhelmingly likely to have experienced violence or abuse at the hands of a male partner or family member more than 50% had suffered violence at home – domestic violence about a third had been sexually assaulted.
    •    Likely to be a parent, and to have or to have lost primary caring responsibility for their children. Two thirds are mothers of under eighteens.
    These are the issues/problems women in prison have.
    A point is that most of them have most of them
    Women in prison have clusters of problems

    There is no one picture but poor education and resources, low skills and low self esteem, broken/inadequate relationships, sexual or physical abuse lead to trauma or isolation, self medication leading to addiction, debt, homelessness, chaotic lives often having children.  Steal/ shoplift/do benefit fraud to keep body and soul together and to feed their kids as well as their habits and they appear in court many times before being sent to prison. Until courts feel have no alternative and also that if they can be taken out of their lifestyle they can be given help – imprison for own good.
    Short sentences are all that is appropriate;
    give no opportunity for rehabilitation from addiction , no chance to get onto treatment regimes which might help any underlying trauma or maladjustment from abuse, no time to get any needs assessment let alone to be able to take up any of the obvious inputs such chaotic people need – basic budgeting; how to cook to how to care for themselves so that they feel they are worth the bother of making  an effort.
    However a short sentence does in 80 – 90% of cases ensure – even at 40 days that they
    lose their home – already in debt now gone
    95% of children have to leave their home on the conviction of their mother. Lose their children – of course someone has to look after them.
    If a woman has a family the women will look after the children and bring them. Many do not have families or have alienated them.
    Typical women prisoner;” Its my children they are my biggest concern because I have not spent a day away from them since they were born…..My son’s schoolwork has suffered. I didn’t get the chance to explain to him that i was coming into prison.”
    So no help for the multiple problems that she started with; Additionally, no home and either no children or children adversely affected by her absence – with which to start again on a low grade life that gave no hope in the first place. Women should never – says Corston – be imprisoned for their own good.
    Imprisoning  such women is damaging and unproductive.
    Same arguments about inadequacy apply to a lot of men – complexity and multiplicity of vulnerabilities: women are still primary main primary carers; there is 50% DV and one third Sexual abuse, mainly both together.  Far higher than for men.
    And Programmes historically geared to the needs of men offenders because of their greater numbers and the greater frequency and seriousness of their crimes and ironically because do more serious offences and get longer sentences can get onto programmes
    Women have distinct and complex vulnerability and underlying needs as offenders.

    There are other women in prison. I am not leaving out the dangerous women who must be imprisoned.
    Fine defaulters- 20% – same point.  (Average no in NI is one for four days)
    Remand- 48% population in Northern Ireland. Perhaps it takes  longer to get to trial with smaller c j system.  18% on remand overall.
    60% do not get custodial sentences. There is a proportion that don’t get custody because they have had in effect a sentence on remand but the court is given a fait accomplit and probably can’t justify even an additional positive programme when already been imprisoned.
    Green Paper “Breaking the cycle” proposes to remove remand for people not likely to get custodial sentence. We should support that
    Remand is the worst. Remanding women breaks up homes and separates children as much as a short sentence but it may also by that sentencing conundrum keeping women out of positive programmes too.

    We can’t just  say – these are the sentence of the courts and  so they are untouchable.
    We have to offer courts an alternative to custody.
    There are some positive programmes now.
    One success story is conditional caution.
    You are all familiar with caution regime: – avoid prosecution for offence on list if over 18, is evidence to charge and admit it. The backup is to prosecute.
    When I was S-G from 2007 we designed a “Women Specific Condition” (WSC) to require a woman offender to attend a Women’s Centre for a needs assessment.
    There are Women’s Centres. You have a stronger legacy of WC probably  than in England. In 2005 when Fawcett presented “One Year On” its second report on women and CJ I was PPS to Charles Clarke, Home Secretary, he attended the launch giving us £5.2 M to set up Centres which he couldn’t define to give the inputs women needed.
    They are called Together Women. Run by women. Independent of police and authorities and so trusted. Work with low level low risk women offenders and non- offender women with problems of the kind I have mentioned – possible offenders but anyway women needing help.
    TWPs in West Yorkshire and Liverpool were involved.
    As organisations they networked into public and voluntary input, so the can offer either within their four walls or otherwise – self esteem, budgeting childcare, anger management, cognitive behavioural therapy or other talking therapies to cope with psychological issues or depression, skills training, though often pre-work skills – by way of examples.
    I launched TWP and I have been. They are well located for access, friendly sympathetic well organised and professional.
    We could only require attending for an assessment as the condition because of a need to keep the condition proportionate  and I wondered if women would return after the assessment if they didn’t have to do. TWP said to me. DOnt worry if we get them to come in and see what we can do, they will come. And they did.
    There are now 45 community projects of this kind funded by the Ministry of Justice mainly since 2009. They are there to support women and divert them from crime. These now have the term integrated women offender services are rooted in  local and regional charities. The vast majority are voluntary sector-run but have a strong interface with the criminal justice system. The projects practise all-stages diversion – that is, women at any stage in the criminal justice system can access their services, whether they be at risk of offending; offending as yet unsanctioned; in receipt of a conditional caution or community sentence; on bail awaiting trial or sentence; in prison (through in-reach); or resettling from prison.
    Evaluation so far : Evolve at Calderdale Women’s Centre enhanced women’s skills to make decisions and be in control of their lives, and strengthened relationships with their children and families. Reduced the likelihood of women re-offending through providing holistic support. Between July 2007 to July 2008, only 4 women of 87 who accessed the project reoffended. Together Women projects’ self-reported re-offending rates in the first year of operation in the north-west were 7% and in the projects in the Yorkshire and Humberside region were 13%
    This compares to a reoffending rate of 33 per cent for women offenders overall in the same period.
    The SWAN project in Northumberland has made a 70 percent reduction in the rate of re-offending of the women who have engaged with the project.
    •    Alana House in Reading – 3 women of 96 self-reported reoffending during their engagement with the project
    And similarly in Stoke, Salford , Plymouth Derby and Leicester

    It is important to note that these models only came on stream recently and so evaluation  is somewhat provisional
    May I pause and consider the Northern Irish position where the women’s prison Ash House is attached to HydeBank, a YOI. I would respectfully suggest that you do not build a big women’s prison because it will soon get full. These projects are new and little known. Would it not be better to invest in your existing and new womens centres following this model.

    Women as Prey
    Women as victims and witnesses. The opposite side of women’s involvement in the criminal justice system.  At Fawcett we put out a bid for evidence. And we got back a lot of evidence about rape and domestic violence.
    So we put out another bid for evidence NOT about rape and dv since we wanted to look broadly at women in these roles.
    But we got back —  none.
    Women’s engagement with cjs is dominated by violence against women.
    I was Solicitor General in a Labour Government, deeply committed to improving performance on violence against women prosecutions  over a long years. we made progress.
    We worked hard to increase reporting and to improve conviction rates; to ensure that victims are supported, that the criminal justice responds well. Turned to prevention. Work needs to continue.
    However the situation today is that 3million women across the UK experience rape, domestic violence, forced marriage, trafficking for sexual, servitude and prostitution.
    The total annual cost of violence against women is estimated to be £40billion. Costs to the CJS costs to the health service, lost days at work or working at poor capacity because of trauma, damage to business from that debilitated input.
    Violence against women is a consequence of gender inequality and also a cause of gender inequality continuing. Work to encourage women into highly paid jobs, to get better careers advice, develop part time work opportunities, pursue equal pay are all at naught for 3 million women who suffer domestic violence and rape by a possessive husband, sexual harassment at work or is rape on a date – futures may be seriously jeopardised by trauma.
    Violence against women has a devastating effect on victims.
    Rape can deeply traumatise women, prevent women from living where they were if the offence was nearby or at home, stop their studies through shock and trauma, make them unable to work, be thrown into poverty, chaotic lifestyle, be less able to care for their children, find sexual relationships too daunting to attempt or that they fail. It is the most damaging crime short of murder.
    Domestic violence can make women terrified in their own homes where they are subjected to the power and control of another. They feel shame that it is their fault, exhausted, isolated;suffer low self esteem by being ground down, doubt that they will be taken seriously if they complain because perpetrators of dv are often quite likeable people outside. Blame her for staying or think that the dv must be exaggerated. The most dangerous time is when someone is planning to leave.
    All WA and advisory services have a “leave this website quickly” button so if he comes she can move off.
    Womens Aid puts its phone no on till rolls at Tesco, something everybody had since women are beaten if such a phone no is found on them. 40% of women are assaulted or stalked when they leave
    One in four women suffers it in her lifetime with one in 6 to 8 in any one year. 2 women a week are killed by dv.in GB every year. Every minute of every day is a call to a police station about domestic violence – even though we believe that less than half of it is reported.
    We did much: Made it a crime to breach a DV injunction so that police could take over enforcement to lift the burden from women having to take action themselves.
    We trained police. So they no longer fail to interfere in a “domestic”. They must report it back to a specialist officer the following day for follow up. The CPS established  Special Prosecutors. The dynamics of DV need to be understood. For instance women do not make a complaint until the violence has been going on for – we used to say 35 incidents, but now we think it may be nearer 20 because access to help has got better. So Magistrates are also trained to preside over Special Domestic Violence Courts of which are now 104. Each one has an Independent Domestic Violence Adviser who She befriends and helps cope with the house move, end of childcare, benefits changes, job problems or whatever have followed from her reporting it and which were probably holding her back from it and chases the court case.
    Court powers are increased by the availability of restraining orders on conviction and also on acquittal if there is a fear that she is in danger or needs protection – this latter has in effect moved the county court injunction power into the criminal court.

    GOOD RESULTS; In 2004 37% of victims retracted if they could be persuaded to go to court. Now about 17% retract their cases. The conviction rate from charge then was 25% and now it is 78%.
    Rape – less than half of women report DV but only about 10% report rape or sexual assault.
    Again we did a lot in government
    We removed much of the right to cross examine about previous sexual history, a major deterrent to women and largely irrelevant to the issues in a case. We changed definition of consent to make it simpler and fairer
    We trained police and CPS after a dreadful Joint Inspection of by the Police and CPS Inspectorates, in 2002 which was comprehensively critical of the way in which the authorities dealt with rape.

    Multitudes of cases were no-crimed where there was a criminal allegation that officers did not think would produce a conviction.
    Women were asked about PSH when it was irrelevant
    78% of detectives investigating rape allegations did not send any DNA sample obtained from the complainant to the national database if the parties knew each other, presumably because they thought in such a case the accused would not be a criminal;

    Here we are dealing with attitudes. A report by Amnesty in 2005 showed that 70% of people asked thought woman who flirted, wore a short skirt, or drank alcohol was responsible if she was raped.   Of course the training was to alter those attitudes in the  professionals.
    Having started to get a body of trained professionals we had to get women to them. So we built Sexual Assault Referral Centres, the Rolls Royce model of how to care for rape victims, non-judgmentally, as if a complainant is a patient. She will be examined by a specialist forensic medical examiner. If she wants to complain it will be a specialist police officer who comes. It is an unlike as possible to what used to happen, that she would have to go to a police station, make her complaint through a glass from a, perhaps full, waiting room, get a local detective, with no rape-specific skills or experience and, often being examined by an FME who could have just certified someone dead at a road traffic incident.
    We also aimed to ensure that all victims should have access to an Independent Sexual Violence Advisor They are befrienders. Judges have looked at what they can say in directions to bust unfair myths in court trials.
    There is a well-known myth that if someone is raped they will complain to the first person they come to or run straight to the police. If a complainant does not do that, the defence will  suggest at trial that she was happy to have sex at the time but something made her change her mind later. That is the defence say that a late complaint is a false complaint. We know that it is common for women who have been raped not to report the matter at once because they are traumatised, full of guilt and shame, questioning their own judgement about being with the man in the first place. Jurors do not know this.
    In a case called Doody in the Court of Appeal, when I was Solicitor General it was agreed that a judge should give a direction to the jury that it was the general experience of the courts that women did not complain at once.
    The propagating of such a directions is important. If police or  CPS think that a defendant saying that a late complaint is self-evidently untrue will be accepted by a jury, they won’t prosecute but if they know the judge will give a direction that helps redress the balance, they might.
    There were nearly 11500 rape convictions in 2004 with a conviction rate form complaint to conviction of 5.3%. Last year there were around 16000 convictions and the rate had climbed a little to 7.2%. So that is approximately 1200 total convictions compared to 590 and they have roughly doubled in 6 years. This is probably a mark of some success in persuading women are being to come forward. However, the drop out rate from report to court is still vast.

    We have done all of that but still one in four suffers dv and half don’t report – that is one in eight women. Only 10% report rape and the conviction rate is 7% which means 7% of people raped get justice and there are thousands of women raped every year who do not.

    I have rehearsed the traumas it causes and there is a hidden group of women suffering from these impacts.

    And those are the consequence of our failure historically to have recognized the prevalence and profound impacts of these appalling offences on women and their families. And to intervene early enough. It is a fact that DV and rape are inter-related and that is one driver to call the whole thing VAW. There is never a case of DV abuse and demeaning without sexually demeaning – as a moments pause would help one to understand. So rape and dv victims are women cjs has failed.
    They won’t come to court. We started with that and went forwards trying to get judges then police then SARCS to help them and if there could be no co-operation at all in a case with the CJS, we funded some rape crisis and women’s aid projects who if the post code is right will be available to help with trauma. But there is twice produced report called Map of Gaps which shows that this is patchy and so we must accept that there are a lot of traumatized women who are not being helped at all.

    We are now looking at women as victims/ prey are looking at one end of the criminal justice system and how it deals with these blameless women. We have moved away for the perpetrators/defendant.

    Let me recap what I said about the impact of rape:
    Rape can deeply traumatise women, prevent women from living where they were if the offence was nearby or at home, stop their studies through shock and trauma, make them unable to work, be thrown into poverty, chaotic lifestyle, be less able to care for their children, find sexual relationships too daunting to attempt; have broken relationships. It is the most damaging crime short of murder. Mental health issues and addiction
    Domestic violence can make women terrified in their own homes They feel shame that it is their fault, exhausted, isolated; suffer low self esteem by being ground down, doubt that they will be taken seriously if they complain. Can become PTSD and drink or drugs or fall into debt. Too hopeless to manage.
    Characteristics of women in prison: let me recap: There is no one picture but poor education and resources, low skills and low self esteem, broken/inadequate relationships, sexual or physical abuse lead to trauma or isolation, self medication leading to addiction, debt, homelessness, chaotic lives leading them to crime.

    About a third of women in prison have been raped, probably several times higher than in the general population.

    About half have suffered domestic abuse, at least twice as high as in the general population.

    And at Fawcett Commission and in Corston Review there emerged a quite surprising realization which is that when we examine the women who are blameless victims of crime in the cjs and those who are wicked defendants – we are looking at the same people.

    And the women who go to prison have multiple needs too– no qualifications no work experience, low self esteem few coping skills. And so it is worse than merely rape and abuse victims becoming defendants it is mainly those who already have very complex needs who end up in prison.

    Experiences of violence and sexual abuse are key factors in such women\’s pathways to crime; if the issue is not addressed early enough by health and support services, and by the justice system righting the wrong, we do little to support such women and some of them, in their chaos, turn to offending.

    We doubly wrong those women we haven’t, historically, supported to make early complaints and then go on to imprison when their trauma drives them into chaotic lifestyles and crime, usually repeat low-level financial offending.

    A 2007 study estimated that people with chaotic lifestyles and those with multiple needs together are 0.2 per cent of the population. This would imply that there are around 84,000 women with both chaotic lifestyles and multiple needs.
    Many will end up in contact with the criminal justice system.

    We need to consider 3 things. If such women do become defendants, prison will not change the but make them worse. We must ensure that there is an ever-present awareness of this in the criminal justice system from now on and women must never again be an add-on to men
    We should do all we can to make the public  authorities in touch with people aware that there is a hidden population that is being abused and cant find a way out. There should then develop outreach to help as early as possible before permanent harm is done
    We must ensure that Women’s Centres are resourced. They do not  categorise women since they know that a wicked defendant may underneath be a blameless victim and what is need is to tackle their problems.
    If the first two parts of my talk could be called, after the Fawcett Commission’s labelling  “Women Need Justice” I would refer to this part as “Justice Needs Women”
    So I turn to women working in the criminal justice system.
    Women are making inroads at lower levels in cj agencies but the higher positions remain male dominated. These echelons are where the rules of the game – the norms are set which deal with women as victims or as defendants.
    Here is a checklist of 3 reasons why Justice needs more women.
    •    Women make up half the population and as such should be fairly represented within the high level decision making roles in the justice sector
    •     Justice needs to be responsive and accessible to all citizens irrespective of gender. Suspects, defendants, offenders, victims and witnesses jurors all interacting with the cjs are of diverse backgrounds across gender class race religion disability and sexual orientation. It is therefore important that senior staff within the system are equally diverse so that the system is perceived as relevant and responsive.
    •    The increased visibility of women in senior roles as role models in this very public arena can help reshape gender role expectations.

    I was once in Manchester Crown Court when all the judges assembled in one court to pay tribute to someone who was retiring. Their ushers brought them in and took them out and I must have looked worried at the gender balance because one usher said to me “ Don’t worry you might  live to see the day when all the judges are women and all the ushers are men”  However I would settle for a mixture in both groups.

    •    Women’s experience of justice and of everyday life frequently differs from those of men. The participation of women within cj agencies is therefore crucial to ensure that those difference perspectives and approaches can be applied to important issues.

    Let me exemplify by reference to a Court of Appeal case
    It was I believe the CA level of the case of R v A about previous sexual history in rape cases with the defendant. In that case there was allegedly a history of sexual behaviour and the trial court had left it out. It seems to me that it should have been put in on an agreed basis if the facts were agreed, rather than try the case in a vacuum about their previous history. However the issue in the court of appeal became its relevance to consent and the male judge delivering the judgment said that it was obvious to he and his (male) colleagues that the fact that complainant had had sex with a defendant before made it far likelier that she would have agreed to the sex alleged in the case. Any woman on that Court would have said that having had sex with a man once might make it infinitely less likely that a complainant  would agree to it again. It might have been a poor experience. She may have fallen in love with someone else since. She may have feared that she would fall for him if she did it again and decide not to do. There are many possibilities but it is not obvious that it makes her consent more likely.

    If we look at women workers in the criminal justice agencies, in the police , 27% of PCs are women but only 12 % of chief inspector grades and above are women.

    Parenthood issues are the main problem for women
    There is a need for a clear and well understood flexibility policy.

    Spending weeks away on a strategic command course is impossible for a primary carer and better ways of training for promotion need to be found.

    Some specialist  squads have outdated requirements  – like  a level of upper body strength – perhaps the shot putting squad.
    This is a throw back to days when all Met police had to be 5” 11” tall, presumably because that was generally as big as men were and so they should be able to hand any fight. It  discriminated against most average-sized men, not just women.
    According to Fawcett’s last report police shirts are ordered by collar size and stab vest have no shaping for women – very uncomfortable
    Women have a job to do in all aspects of policing. For instance are excellent in public order situations. Out in town on a late night there is often somebody who wants to fight the world and would see a male PC as a challenge, they calm down if it is a woman.
    In the Legal Profession, a Law Society survey in 2008 found that male solicitors earned on average £19000 a year more than females, representing the problems women have in progressing to senior levels. Although there are 62% approx of women students and of trainees there are only 19.6% of women partners in the top 100 firms.
    The long hours culture, inflexible hours and lack of family friendly policies seem to be to blame. and maternity leave or career breaks impact on opportunities for promotion.
    In the Government Legal Service where there is greater emphasis on flexibility there is a far higher proportion of women solicitors in senior positions.
    In the top 30 sets at the Bar there are 42 female silks and 479 male silks and women silk applicants have fallen to their lowest for ten years, though more are successful.
    It is the same story. Women now join the Bar in roughly equal numbers to men but at 15 years call only 19.5% of practitioners are women. On average a male barrister earns almost £100000 more than a woman.
    Since judges are drawn predominantly from the last two categories it is not surprising that of the 3820 judges under 20% are women. In the senior judiciary the figure is about 11% and has increased though EHRC estimates that at the current rate of progress parity will take 55 more years.
    The Lord Chief Justice in London says that he and the Judicial Appointments Commission wants is the widest possible choice of candidates from which to make selections based purely on merit.”
    But Professor Dame Hazel Genn’s recent report into the attractiveness of the senior judiciary as a career said that the chief concern raised by women was that the predominantly male environment of the judiciary might be hostile to them. City commercial lawyers showed reluctance to have to prove themselves again “in a world they perceived to be even more antediluvian than city commercial practice”
    The success story is the magistracy where, being voluntary, there is no career progression to be interrupted by family life and the structure is flat. There is good gender balance and the only complaint was that childcare reimbursement should be more highly publicised. This suggests that the aim is younger people rather than any sex bias to overcome
    The important point is that if some women are in powerful roles, bullying men as we discussed in the earlier part of my talk will feel less able to victimize women on thebasis that they are all weak.
    And if women lawyers get onto the bench there may be a clearer understanding of the need for  support  for victims and for fair treatment for women defendants.

  • Breaking Up Breaking Through

    Breaking Up: Breaking Through
    Commonwealth Women in Science and the Professions
    Panel Contribution by Vera Baird QC, former Solicitor General of England and Wales and Co-Director of Astraea:Gender Justice (Research and Training)
    In the UK, Women are making inroads at lower levels in justice agencies but the higher positions remain male dominated. These echelons are where the rules of the game – the norms are set which deal with women as victims or as defendants.
    Here is a checklist of 3 reasons why Justice needs more women.
    •    Women make up half the population and as such should be fairly represented within the high level decision making roles in the justice sector
    •     Justice needs to be responsive and accessible to all citizens irrespective of gender. Suspects, defendants, offenders, victims and witnesses jurors all interacting with the cjs are of diverse backgrounds across gender class race religion disability and sexual orientation. It is therefore important that senior staff, within the system are equally diverse so that the system is perceived as relevant and responsive.
    •    The increased visibility of women in senior roles as role models in this very public arena can help reshape gender role expectations.

    I was once in Manchester Crown Court when all the judges assembled in one court to pay tribute to someone who was retiring. Their ushers brought them in and took them out and I must have looked worried at the gender balance because one usher said to me “Don’t worry you might live to see the day when all the judges are women and all the ushers are men”. However I would settle for a mixture in both groups.

    •    Women’s experience of justice and of everyday life frequently differs from those of men. The participation of women within justice agencies is therefore crucial to ensure that those difference perspectives and approaches can be applied to important issues.

    Let me exemplify by reference to a Court of Appeal case
    It was I believe the CA level of the case of R v A about previous sexual history in rape cases with the defendant. In that case there was allegedly a history of sexual behaviour and the trial court had left it out. It seems to me that it should have been put in on an agreed basis if the facts were agreed, rather than try the case in a vacuum about their previous history. However the issue in the court of appeal became its relevance to consent and the male judge delivering the judgment said that it was obvious to him and his (male) colleagues that the fact that complainant had had sex with a defendant before made it far likelier that she would have agreed to the sex alleged in the case. Any woman on that Court would have said that having had sex with a man once might make it infinitely less likely that a complainant would agree to it again. It might have been a poor experience. She may have fallen in love with someone else since. She may have feared that she would fall for him if she did it again and decide not to do. There are many possibilities but it is not obvious that it makes her consent more likely.

    If we look at women workers in the criminal justice agencies, in the police, 27% of PCs are women but only 12 % of chief inspector grades and above are women.

    Parenthood issues are the main problem for women
    There is a need for a clear and well understood flexibility policy.

    Spending weeks away on a strategic command course is impossible for a primary carer and better ways of training for promotion need to be found.

    Some specialist squads have outdated requirements  – like  a level of upper body strength – perhaps the shot putting squad.
    This is a throw-back from days when all Met police had to be 5” 11” tall, presumably because that was generally as big as men were and so they should be able to hand any fight. It  discriminated against most average-sized men, not just women.
    According to Fawcett’s last report police shirts are ordered by collar size and stab vest have no shaping for women – very uncomfortable
    Women have a contribution to make to all aspects of policing. For instance they are excellent in public order situations. Out in town on a late night there is often somebody who wants to fight the world and would see a male PC as a challenge, they calm down if it is a woman.
    In the Legal Profession, a Law Society survey in 2008 found that male solicitors earned on average £19000 a year more than females, representing the problems women have in progressing to senior levels. Although there are 62% approx of women students and of trainees there are only 19.6% of women partners in the top 100 firms.
    The long hours culture, inflexible hours and lack of family friendly policies seem to be to blame. Maternity leave or career breaks impact on opportunities for promotion.
    In the Government Legal Service where there is greater emphasis on flexibility there is a far higher proportion of women solicitors in senior positions.
    In the top 30 sets at the Bar there are 42 female silks and 479 male silks and women silk applicants have fallen to their lowest for ten years, though more are successful.
    It is the same story. Women now join the Bar in roughly equal numbers to men but at 15 years call only 19.5% of practitioners are women. On average a male barrister earns almost £100000 more than a woman.
    Since judges are drawn predominantly from the last two categories it is not surprising that of the 3820 judges under 20% are women. In the senior judiciary the figure is about 11% and has increased though EHRC estimates that at the current rate of progress parity will take 55 more years.
    The Lord Chief Justice in London says that he and the Judicial Appointments Commission wants is the widest possible choice of candidates from which to make selections based purely on merit.” Let us see what the profession has to overcome if he is to achieve that laudable aim.
    The Legal Services Board (LSB) commissioned a qualitative study of females in the profession (it did so in a project which also dealt with the experience of BME lawyers, but I deal with only the aspects on women)
    They interviewed 64 women

    Though there were regional, organization and sectoral variations in experience there were clear commonalities. In fact they found that the profession is inherently masculine in character. These are some random points: –

    •    The preference of employers for the graduates of “old‟ universities means that sections of society are filtered out of the profession.  In addition, a number of females gave accounts of job interviews in which the interviewer, instead of focusing on their technical ability, had asked inappropriate questions based on assumptions
    •     Women faced difficulties flowing from working patterns based on male models of working. Flexible working patterns are either not permitted, or damage future promotion prospects.
    •    Similarly, while there was widespread agreement that women were now more likely to be able to work part-time, and also progress to partnership, the resilience of a culture of “presenteeism‟
    •    A persistent theme was that it was hard to be recognized  at all, as either a candidate for promotion, or even, on occasions, an authentic member of the profession. Those with power to allocate rewards and status did not need deliberately to discriminate, since the possibility that, for example, women with children or Asian women could achieve significant status on the basis of merit frequently did not appear to occur to them.
    •
    A major obstacle is the profession’s informal culture and in particular the key significance of personal relationships. This is exemplified by the informal mentoring which was reported as characterizing  most respondents’ workplaces. Powerful senior figures (generally white men) tended to foster the careers of young white men.

    •    The importance of networking outside the firm also – predominantly male activities which were also numerically dominated by white men.

    They recommended (amongst other proposals)

    Disclosing and Monitoring Diversity Data
    To place an obligation on frontline regulators to publish aggregated diversity data for each branch of the legal profession. Crown Prosecution Service do that now.
    Formal Mentoring, Role Models and Networks
    Firms and chambers should adopt formal mentoring schemes in order to counter the informal mechanisms which privilege traditional members with partners and those of influence, at the expense of others.
    Flexible Working/Structural Reforms
    Improved willingness to experiment with flexible working patterns, to support work-life balance for everyone but so that women with the primary caring role can nonetheless be seen as full members of firms and chambers. Firms appear to have been willing to adopt flexible working strategies when work was scarce during the recession as a way of avoiding redundancies; maintaining these arrangements once the recession is over would be beneficial, including career breaks, sabbaticals, longer periods of unpaid leave over summer months and four day weeks.
    Formal Diversity Training as part of all levels of training, but in particular from pre-qualification

    It is clear that the figures of women and men entering the profession are comparable and this is clear progress and good evidence of the optimism and high expectations which young women now have.

    The problem is in SUSTAINING women in the professions. It is the male culture, obvious to all but specifically highlighted by the LSB that crushes them.

    As women they are seen as an oddity, from the outset. An anecdote from my experience is that until very recently the Court of Appeal Criminal Division would send a letter to each barrister when s/he had drafted Grounds of Appeal about what they should do next. It was phrased that “Counsel should ensure that his client….. He should ….. The terminology was always “he” Some people will say that it doesn’t matter but it does. It makes women feel that they are outsiders, with a struggle to enter into from the start to show that they are appropriate people to be in that forum.

    Women’s experience worsens with parenthood, if they are to take a primary caring role. There is utter inflexibility about managing this. It is seen as the woman’s problem and though more liberal firms and chambers will make allowances, it is always at the expense of such women being seen as part-time, disengaged, out of the ambitious career profile. In fact society needs children and it needs the work of women for the reasons I set out at the start and so it ought not to be that the individual is seen to be failing to match out-of-date work patterns but that the profession leads the way in promoting the flexibility needed to get the best from and for everybody.

    Women need to champion women and should do so from the start. They are at their most high status at the outset, when they are bright, young, almost male-equivalent assets to the business, with influence that they can use to prescribe a better future course for themselves and other women.

    This can best be done as part of a women’s campaigning group so that women are not forced to take their identity only from their professional role, where they need to fit into a man’s world, but can also have a specific female reference point from a community of similar campaigning women.

    In short the Lord Chief Justice, who is unlikely to be able to set up some women’s campaign groups, will need to support programmes that aid the retention of women in the profession if he is going to succeed in having the level playing field he seeks.