Handbook on Sexual Violence (31 page)

STO ensures victim has ongoing counselling and support

Not guilty

STO takes victim impact statement from victim prior to sentence

Guilty

SIO = Senior Investigating Office (responsible for strategic decisions about the investigation)

119

IO = Investigating Officer (responsible for day-to-day decision-making and running of the investigation)

Figure 5.1
The process for victims who report to the police and the role of the STO

planning (Cybulska 2007). It is important that the STO acts as a link between the SARC staff and the IO as this can inform the forensic strategy and subsequent investigative actions of crime scene investigators (HMCPSI 2007). The relationships between the victim, STOs, SARC staff and other investigators and prosecutors involved in each case are delicate and can be challenging to establish and maintain. The reasons for this are explored in more depth by Rebecca Campbell in Chapter
21 but put simply the victim’s medical and psychological needs have to be considered alongside the forensic, legal and public interest requirements and often these will be in conflict (Martin 2005). The role of the STO is featured in key policy documents and manuals, for example, ‘From Report to Court’ outlines for victims that the officer is there to ‘provide care and support throughout the investigation’ (Rights of Women 2008: 34). Victims are encouraged to report any concerns about the investigation or their safety to the STO. In addition to their policy for prosecuting rape, in 2008 the CPS together with ACPO developed a new joint protocol for investigation and prosecution of rape (CPS 2008; see Box
5.2 for an overview of areas the protocol covers). The importance of the STO is stressed from the outset where the CPS/ACPO policy states the investigation team ‘will’ include a specially trained officer.

Box 5.2
Key points covered by the Protocol between the police and Crown Prosecution Service in the investigation and prosecution of allegations of rape

The protocol has four objectives:

• To reflect national ACPO and CPS policy;
  

• To ensure the adoption of the recommendations of
  Without Consent
  ;
  

• To achieve improved and consistent performance in the investigation and prosecution of rape;
  

• To improve the service to, and increase confidence in the Criminal
  

  Justice System for, victims of rape.
  

  The protocol covers 14 areas:
  

  1. Communication 9) Out of Court Disposal or No
     

  2. First response Further Action
     

  3. Investigation 10) Disclosure
     

  4. Forensic Medical Examination 11) Review and Case Preparation
     

  5. Forensic Submissions 12) Victims and Witnesses
     

  6. Rape Specialist Prosecutors 13) Trial
     

  7. Full and Early Consultation 14) Sharing Lessons Learned
     

  8. Charging
     

  Retrieved from: http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/agencies/
  

  rape_protocol.html
  

  Communicating developments in the case to the victim is also critical in the investigation and prosecution and is the responsibility of the STO. In a number of studies that have interviewed rape victims one of the most consistent criticisms of the police has been that they have not maintained regular contact and provided information to victims throughout the investigation and in some cases the lack of contact has resulted in many victims not being informed of the outcome of their case (see for example Lees and Gregory 1993; Temkin 1999). Good practice dictates that the STO should inform the victim of news about any arrest, charging or bailing of a suspect. Even when decisions are made by the prosecution team to drop a case or reduce charges then an explanatory letter should be delivered by the STO to
  

  

  the victim in person.
  

  Box 5.3
  Mavis’s account of the value of her STO
  

  It was my worst nightmare come true to be raped. The impact not only on me, but also my family, was profound and threw our normal lives into complete turmoil. We were driven by an overwhelming need for justice and put all our faith in the police. From the crucial role of the first response officer, every police contact left a lasting impression, but it was my SOIT officer who really made the difference. Because she was with me, at my most vulnerable, from just after my assault, through the forensic examination and taking my statement, she knew my story and how I would react in certain situations better than anyone else involved. It was invaluable, for me and my family, to have one dedicated police contact, who we all trusted to have my best interests and welfare at heart. She would always take time to explain some, often very bewildering, aspects of the legal process or find answers to very real concerns about what was happening. Above all, I knew she was on my side and understood how important it was for me to have done everything in my power to stop any further assaults. I sat in court with my SOIT when my attacker received a life sentence for rape – I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that I would never have lasted the 18 difficult months to trial without her constant dedication and support.
  

  Account provided by personal communication to the second author
  

  There are times where the dedicated STO will not be able to provide direct support to a victim; an example of this would be any involvement of victims in visual identification procedure. The Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) Act 1984 Code of Practice for the Identification of Persons by Police Officers (2008) specifies: ‘No officer or any other person involved with the investigation of the case against the suspect, beyond the extent required by these procedures, may take any part in these procedures’ (PACE Act Code D: 151). In such cases a second independent STO would be deployed to support the victim taking part in this process.
  

  Since the justified public concern raised after the Graef programme, there have been significant developments in the investigative response to victim care and STO officers are the frontline police officers in rape investigation. The victim-focused work of STOs has often led to victims of serious sexual violence wanting to give testimony in support of the police service and the high standards of victim care (see Box
  5.3). Victims of serious sexual violence will sometimes come forward to promote the work of STOs to those considering applying for training or to promote the service provided to those outside the police service.
  

  In responding to the need to enhance the evidence-gathering and investigation process, while at the same time supporting victims, the role of the STO is now firmly established as the essential police officer role for rape investigation. Only a handful of evaluations of STOs have been conducted but they have consistently found that STOs, when properly resourced and supported, provide an excellent service for victims (this is evidenced by the account in Box
  5.3 from a victim about the value of her STO), although some concerns have been raised about the need for better provision for STOs themselves (see for example Jamel
  et al
  . 2008; Noble 2007).
  

  DNA
  

  In the early 1980s, when investigating serious sexual offences, consideration was given to forensic analysis of crime scene stains and intimate swabs. The best result available from a bloodstain was the category from the ABO Blood Grouping system. When dealing with other staining from body fluids, an investigator’s best hope would rely on whether the body fluid came from a ‘secretor’. A secretor is a person who secretes their blood group type in other body fluids such as saliva or semen. If a blood group for a suspect could be established then this could be compared to the Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory Blood Group index. The index contained names of suspects who had had blood taken for elimination purposes. The Blood Group Index could then be used to prioritise suspects or create new lines of enquiries, but was only available at best as corroborative evidence.
  

  The mid 1980s saw the development of DNA technology by Sir Alec Jeffreys at Leicester University. Named at the time ‘DNA fingerprinting’, this is now commonly referred to as ‘DNA profiling’. There was no identifiable pressure from the police or government for the development of DNA technology but the techniques that evolved have had a significant impact on rape investigations. Gilbert (2010: 347) summarises how DNA profiling works:
  

  Profiles are drawn from short, repeating sequences of DNA scattered throughout the genome, called short tandem repeats (STRs). Because the number of repeats varies widely from person to person the length of these STRs is also highly variable, meaning that by measuring several STRs – between 10–17 – forensic scientists can declare with calculable probability whether DNA left at a crime scene belongs to a suspect.
  

  

  Box 5.4
  The Colin Pitchfork case
  

  In 1983, a 15-year-old schoolgirl was found raped and murdered. A semen sample taken from Lynda Mann’s body was found to belong to a person with type A blood group and an enzyme profile which matched 10 per cent of the adult male population. At that time, with no other leads or forensic evidence, the murder hunt stopped. Three years later, Dawn Ashworth, also 15, was found strangled and sexually assaulted in the same town. Police were convinced the same assailant had committed both murders. Semen samples recovered from Dawn’s body revealed her attacker had the same blood type as Lynda’s murderer. The prime suspect was a local boy, who after questioning revealed previously unreleased details about Dawn Ashworth’s body. Further questioning led to his confession but he denied any involvement in the first murder.
  

  Convinced that he had committed both crimes, officers from Leicestershire Constabulary contacted Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys at Leicester University, who had developed a technique for creating DNA profiles. Using this technique Dr Jeffreys compared semen samples from both murders against a blood sample from the suspect, which conclusively proved that both girls were killed by the same man, but not the suspect. The Forensic Science Service (FSS) confirmed Dr Jeffrey’s conclusions.
  

  The police then undertook the world’s first DNA intelligence-led screen. All adult males in three villages – a total of 5,000 men – were asked to volunteer and provide blood or saliva samples. Blood grouping was performed and DNA profiling carried out by the FSS on the 10 per cent of men who had the same blood type as the killer. The murderer almost escaped again by getting a friend to give blood in his name. However, this friend was later overheard talking about the switch and that he’d given his sample masquerading as Colin Pitchfork. A local baker, Colin Pitchfork, was arrested and his DNA profile matched with the semen from both murders. In 1988 he was sentenced to life for the two murders.
  

  Retrieved from: http://www.forensic.gov.uk/html/media/case-studies
  

  /f-18.html
  

  The first case to be solved through DNA profiling was the two murders committed by Colin Pitchfork (see Box
  5.4 for further details) in 1983 and 1986, although it was Pitchfork’s efforts to avoid providing an elimination sample in a mass screening that brought him to the attention of the enquiry team (Wambaugh 1989). The first conviction using DNA was at Bristol Crown Court on 13 November 1987. Scientists had calculated that the chances of the sample from the scene of a rape not coming from the accused (Robert Melias) was one in four million of the male population, in the light of which he pleaded guilty. A key case that demonstrated the innovative application of DNA technology was a homicide that took place in south London in December 1988, and is particularly relevant to this
  chapter because of the rapes that were linked to it. On 20 December Lorraine Benson was attacked and murdered in Raynes Park,
  

  in the London Borough of Merton. Lorraine’s body was found in open ground in the early hours of the morning. She was partially clothed and had died as a result of ligature strangulation. She had also been subject to blows and had bite marks on her body. A wider search of the area revealed a second crime scene in an access road behind some shops. At this scene some of Lorraine’s belongings and a man’s handkerchief were found. Marks in dust on a vehicle at this scene matched the weave on Lorraine Benson’s coat. At the same time as this incident, a separate police enquiry was running on a linked series of serious sexual assaults in Kingston upon Thames, a neighbouring area. In this series the police had already released a description of a suspect. The media focused on the description of the suspect and it was decided to run the Kingston enquiry alongside the Lorraine Benson case. There was a great deal of media interest and a television reconstruction generated 400 calls from the public. This enquiry coincided with the first year of the opening of the DNA profiling unit at the Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory (MPFSL). The use of DNA technology was so new that police had to approach medical practitioners to obtain the appropriate preservatives for detained suspects’ blood samples, as this had never been routinely used by police before. At the time most suspect elimination samples were obtained from blood; these are now routinely taken from mouth (buccal cell) swabs.
  

  The breakthrough in the Benson case occurred when a DNA profile from nasal mucus was found on the handkerchief. It was also established that the handkerchief contained a separate DNA profile from a bloodstain that matched Lorraine Benson’s DNA. But the mucus sample did not match any suspects from the Kingston enquiry. Enquiries continued and in February 1989 an attempted rape took place in the Raynes Park area. Fingerprints found at the scene matched those of John Dunne, a 19-year-old local man. While in custody dental impressions were taken from Dunne which matched the marks found on Lorraine’s body. Dunne was charged with the murder of Lorraine Benson, and his DNA was later found to match the nasal mucus in the handkerchief. Dunne later made an unsolicited confession to the murder of Lorraine Benson, admitting striking Lorraine and then giving her his handkerchief to wipe her face. Dunne pleaded guilty to murder but he was not forensically linked to the Kingston cases, which remain unsolved. This case was the first murder solved by DNA profiling in the MPFSL and the first recorded DNA profile from nasal secretions (Allard 1992).