Loading summary
Transcript94 lines
- [00:01]
A
So good, so good, so good.
- [00:03]
B
New markdowns up to 70% off are
- [00:06]
A
at Nordstrom Rack stores now. Stock up and save big on shoes, tops, dresses, accessories and more must haves for summer. Join the nordiclub to unlock exclusive discounts.
- [00:16]
B
Shop new arrivals first and more. Plus, buy online and pick up at your favorite rack store for free. Great brands, great prices.
- [00:24]
A
That's why you Rack Plan B is a backup birth control option that's there for you when things don't go according to plan. It specifically works after unprotected sex and before pregnancy occurs by temporarily delaying ovulation. Plan B is available nationwide at all major retailers and through delivery apps like DoorDash, no ID, prescription or age requirement. It's the number one OBGYN recommended brand of emergency contraception and it won't impact your future fertility. That's freedom to be use as directed. Where is Daredevil? I'm right here. Don't miss the return of Marvel Television's Daredevil Born Again.
- [01:06]
B
So what's next? I feel liberated. We're gonna take this city back over
- [01:11]
A
medicated in an all new season. Now streaming only on Disney plus.
- [01:15]
B
They're hunting us. It's time we started hunting them. I can work with them.
- [01:22]
A
This should be tons of fun. Marvel Television's Daredevil Born Again now streaming only on Disney.
- [01:34]
B
The Spontaneity Shot presents the Guilty Feminist with me, Deborah Francis White and my very special guest, Charlotte Proudman, talking about criminal justice. Hello, Guilty Feminist listeners. We have a very, very special episode today. Now listeners in the UK will very much know about the story. If you're listening internationally, there has been a story in the press very recently here about two girls. And I give you a content warning here because this is about extreme interior sexual assault and we are going to talk about it. So if this isn't for you today, just letting you know, hopefully you can come back to it another time because I think it's very important and very, very feminist issue. There were two young teenage girls who were raped once by two boys and once by the same two boys with a third boy filming and laughing. The boys were found guilty by a jury and then a judge decided that the sentencing should be a fine of £26. Neither of them got a custodial sentence. You can imagine the feelings that women and girls have all over the country. I have been lucky enough to have Charlotte Proudman come and talk to us about this today because I've been in deep anxiety about this for so many reasons and wanting to say something about it, but I never really want to fire something off on Instagram without really thinking it through. And Charlotte Proudman is a British barrister, academic and writer who specializes in family law and women's rights. Her hit book, he said, she Said, Truth Trauma and the Struggle for Justice in Family Court is out now and is exceptional. And Charlotte is representing one of the survivors of this case at the moment. So I feel extremely privileged to have her come and talk to us because I want to talk it out. I want to think it out. I want our, I want all of you, our listeners and followers, to be able to do so too. But. But I want to be able to do it in a contextualized and nuanced way. So, Charlotte, thank you so, so much for coming to join me today.
- [03:55]
A
Thank you so much for inviting me, Deborah. It's real pleasure to be here.
- [03:58]
B
Well, I've long wanted to get you on the podcast and I would really love to do a live show with you and have our audience be able to ask you questions too. But this felt too urgent, like we just needed to talk about this as soon as possible and get it out. On the guilty Feminist, what are your thoughts on this case?
- [04:15]
A
First off, I think obviously it's utterly harrowing and I my heart goes out to the girls and their families to endure a five and a half week rape trial and to have given evidence about the trauma that they suffered despite the fact that the boys called them liars in court through their counsel, and then to receive a guilty verdict and for the boys to walk free and be praised, praised, praised by the judge for their conduct, I think is absolutely extraordinary and sends a clear message that rape can almost be committed with impunity. It has almost become decriminalized. I mean, the judge said he thought it was unnecessary to criminalize these boys. Isn't that the purpose of the criminal justice system?
- [05:04]
B
Well, they are criminals. Criminalizing someone for me is when you're criminalizing a marginalized population, I. E. You're projecting criminality on group or on an individual who would otherwise not have been seen by the public as a criminal. I can't see that you're criminalizing boys who have raped, filmed the rape, raped at knife point. They are criminals.
- [05:31]
A
They absolutely, they're rapists. Ultimately, whether they are teenagers or whether they're adults, what they did is serious sexual violation. And it seemed to me, from certainly the details I'm aware of and from what I've read along with, I know many other people, that certainly has the hallmarks, isn't it of premeditated acts of rape. I mean to think that, you know, two separate girls, two separate incidents in the course of two months, very similar in nature. And I think for me, you know, the survivor that I'm representing who was raped in an underpass and then to hear that that was filmed and then put on social media, shared around with her peer group, that she was then contacted by so called friends called a slag and other such heinous things just shows that the shame still sits with the survivors rather than the perpetrators. And for them they get kudos from that.
- [06:31]
B
Yes, the judge extraordinarily said, well you've behaved very well in court, but they showed no remorse. And in fact on the stand they said that the girls were liars and that they'd wanted it.
- [06:43]
A
I know, I mean, how is that good behavior? Fancy praising perpetrators, rapists for using barristers, no doubt at public expense, at taxpayers expense to continue the re victimization and re traumatization of those survivors through the law. The courtroom becomes a space of further abuse when they're allowed to call them liars and they're allowed to lie about the fact that they had raped them and showed no remorse whatsoever. And for me that signals the fact that rehabilitation and moving back into the community I think is going to be an exceptionally hard task indeed. Even if at all, if they don't show any insight at all and haven't even apologized.
- [07:30]
B
And what was the response of the girls? Because they've made responses and I've heard them. But I know that you'll know more about it, especially as you're representing one
- [07:40]
A
of them, the very brave, courageous girl that I'm representing, when she read out her victim impact statement in court, said that she was ready to die. I mean, I find that utterly heartbreaking and I'm sure for other people that are listening it's just unimaginable, the level of trauma. And I think for some victims going through that process, when justice is at least seen to be done, it can provide some sort of cathartic process to start that journey of healing. But then when as a victim you're sitting there and you hear your rapist being praised and, and then walking out of the court with nothing more than a slap on the wrist is only going to compound your trauma and you're going to sit and question, as indeed I've been told by the survivor I'm representing, why did I do that? Why did I put myself through a five and a half week trial? Nothing was going to happen. She gave a Very brave interview to Laura Kuenssberg on the BBC and she said it was like having a rock thrown in her face and it was as if the boys had done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law.
- [08:50]
B
And do you think it encourages those boys to just go out and do it again because they've learned, well, nothing happens.
- [08:58]
A
I mean, arguably the law should be a deterrent. That's the purpose of it, you know, to prevent people from committing crimes and certainly reoffending. And if the message is you can rape and you'll receive a 26 pound fine and you can walk out of court, then why wouldn't you commit rape? Between the boys that were convicted, there were more than 10 counts of rape on two girls.
- [09:21]
B
On two girls.
- [09:21]
A
So this was multiple, multiple, multiple rapes.
- [09:24]
B
And they're saying the girls wanted that in public places. And one of them was filmed.
- [09:28]
A
For me, that's what I find utterly unforgivable is the fact that one of the boys said that the girls wanted it and that they lied and they'd created this story to provide an alibi to the parents and as to where they were, just utter nonsense. But to be hit with that and then have to respond to it in court, it's almost as if the victim becomes the defendant and they're the ones that are having to justify and explain their actions, so the burden is placed back on them. And I just think that is really problematic in our legal system.
- [10:02]
B
It really, really is. I went to support a friend once who had. Had been sexually assaulted in a public place by a stranger. And the way that his barrister questioned her, it made her feel like you could see. Like it felt like she was the defendant. And you just think, gosh, is that at one point that judge did say, I don't allow that line of questioning in my courtroom. But you could see that barrister, I kind of felt him thinking, I can't believe I'm saying this, you know, like, I could see him having some internal shame at going, well, this is the line of argument that's most likely to get him off. And I'm his barrister and, you know, but you could see his, his weariness of it and his embarrassment of it, actually. But it shouldn't be allowed. Like, the judge didn't allow it. The judge said, you can't question her as if she's the defendant. And when you've got teenage girls who have been raped multiple times and in one incident, in one case, there was a knife involved, how can any judge say, I don't think you understood Consent. If you threaten with a knife, you know what consent is?
- [11:24]
A
Threat with a knife. And apparently, as we've read, a threat to kill. So, you know, I mean, seems to me to be fairly obvious what the purpose of using the knife and making that threat was to rape because the girl otherwise wouldn't consent. I mean, obviously, sex in a context of threat with a knife is. Is not consensual, is it at all?
- [11:50]
B
There's no. There's no gray area in which you could say when he was a teenager, he didn't really get it. He, you know, he. He had a knife.
- [11:58]
A
Yeah, he had a knife. And yet.
- [11:59]
B
And there were three of them.
- [12:00]
A
Yeah.
- [12:01]
B
One thing I want to talk to you about is I. I wrote this book called Six Conversations We're Scared to Have, which is about the polarization of society and how we've ended up in the. The multitude of problems that we've got. And I spoke to Jared Bartle, and I've written extensively about what he said and my conversation with him in my book. He's a lecturer and researcher in criminology and justice studies at RMIT University in Melbourne, an expert in jurisprudence. And most people in jurisprudence who are experts in the justice system say that prison doesn't work. As it stands, it doesn't work. It's a hangover from the Victorian era where we warehoused people that we didn't know what to do with. Whether that be. We've got rid of all the others. We've got rid of debtors, prison. We've got rid of orphanages. We've got rid of those really horrible mental institutions where they put people in, like, a warehouse and throw away the keys. Key. We've got rid of so many of those systems because they didn't work. But we are left with this overhang of prison because people have this idea of, well, they must be punished. But most people in prison, Jared was saying, are marginalized and have been failed by society. But the people that are sociopathic, those prison systems make those people worse because they don't build empathy. So if you are there because you are a psychopath, that is likely to make you worse. And we need a system where people's empathy is built. And Jared says that he's not an abolitionist. He says that there are some people who, for the good of society, need to be contained, sent away, not with us because of the damage they do. He said they have such severe personality disorders that they do need to be locked away. But he said it doesn't need to be an unempathetic place. It should be a place which is trying to build empathy. And if you have concrete walls and floors and you call people by their surnames and you dress them in a horrible uniform and you make life unpleasant and you say you're. You're subhuman, you don't deserve anything, you will exacerbate the worst excesses of that person and then you will let them out back into society and they will be worse. But he says most people are much better off with community intervention. He said the problem is the public think it's prison or nothing. But he said, actually, now, especially with electronic bracelets and anklets and things, we have the technology to know where people are. You don't need to lock them up in a place designed to strip their empathy. He said it's so much better when they have to do community service. They have to go to rehab in almost all cases, they have to go to therapy. They have to face the people they've hurt and they have to make things better if those people will be faced by them. But he said they're so much better off. And he said even most violent offenders are better off in their community. But you have to then, of course, be making sure those people aren't hurting people. And that takes work. There's part of me that when I see this on the Internet, the response that, well, these teenagers have to have a custodial sentence. I'm reminded of a judge I once spoke to who said, whenever I have to give children a custodial sentence, which sometimes the law ties my hands and I do, my heart sinks because I know I am sending them into a life of crime. If they go into a bar stool, I know that they will commit offences again when they come out, pretty much guaranteed. If there are other ways of getting them to see what they've done is wrong and mending their ways and changing and becoming better people, I would rather do that. So I want to put that on the table in as much as I am very conflicted. At the same time, while we are in a world where people are getting custodial sentences, well, a child's got a custodial sentence for throwing an ottoman in a shopping center off a high floor. Now, he could have really hurt someone, but. But he had his friend film it. And I could see why a teenager might do that. They might go, oh, this is really funny because it looks like a soft. You know, it looked like a sort of. It's an ottoman. It looked like a soft, cushiony thing. And he Picked it up and flung it over the side and had his friend film it because he's probably seen, you know, clips of punk, you know, you're. You've been punk type this kind of thing before. And he thought it would be funny and probably didn't think it would hurt anybody. He. He got a custodial sentence. And that makes me feel like a footstool is more important than a girl. So this is the complexity of this. I don't want that child to go. I definitely don't want that child to go to Boston or to a juvenile detention center. That's ridiculous. But these boys deliberately hurt and violated in the worst possible way to two girls. Like, how do we reconcile all of this? How do you feel about the prison system? How do you feel about sending children into juvenile detention centers?
- [17:14]
A
Yeah, I think this is a really important topic because I know that obviously within the feminist movement, there are a lot of feminists that are anti carceral punishment and anti sending perpetrators to prison, regardless of the crimes that they commit. Some are abolitionists as well. I wouldn't put myself within that sphere. But I think it's an important conversation to have and we can learn a lot, I think, from having some of those debates within feminism. I think from my perspective, and representing survivors of rape, domestic abuse, coercive and controlling behavior, one of the real issues is that rape itself has almost become decriminalized. I say that because of all the reports of rape that are made to the police, and the vast majority, by the way, don't report, but when they do, only 3% result in a charge. The. The vast majority will never even get to court. So if we were in a society where rape, I think, was properly criminalized, bearing in mind that one in four women will suffer with sexual assault or rape, and the vast majority walk away scot free, which then creates a society where this has become endemic with almost no consequences. And I think speaking to survivors, they do want a form of punishment along with rehabilitation, I'm sure. And that punishment, I think, does include prison time. However, the point that you make, Deborah, which I think is an incredibly important one, is, well, if prison doesn't rehabilitate, then aren't we just, you know, moving rapists from society to prison, back to society to continue raping others and even making them worse, finding collaborators, other people that they can engage in this behavior with. And I think, you know, one of the issues, though, that we do, I think, have to grapple with is that the rehabilitation system in our society doesn't Work. It doesn't, it doesn't, it doesn't work. Even with the boys that we are talking about in Hampshire, the three boys that were convicted of raping two girls. What does that rehabilitation actually look like in practice? And who are the, who are the people that are going to oversee this rehabilitation within the community? And I say that because, I mean having, you know, being a barrister now for almost in fact over 15 years, one of my real concerns and bugbears are domestic abuse perpetrator programs. And I have seen this, these roll out for more than a decade and now in certainly within family courts. And I know they're used in criminal contexts as well. They are not necessarily accredited or regulated by anyone.
- [19:57]
B
Wow.
- [19:58]
A
And I have seen within cases, perpetrators of rape who have been found to have raped enroll on some of these domestic abuse perpetrator programs which are run by men's rights activists. And so they are reinforcing the same behavior rather than actually calling them out, holding them accountable, challenging them, trying to encourage a change in attitude, beliefs and behaviors. Yes, yes. I've cross examined perpetrators, rapists on the programs they've enrolled in and I've seen some of the things that they've said within the programs because quite often you'll get disclosure. So a perpetrator may say oh well you know, it wasn't really a rape and oh no, she did consent and it was like this and you know, she was asking for it and that type of language and it's not pushed back on. And so what they end up with at the end can be a certificate. They've engaged well, they attended all of the classes. In fact, one domestic abuse perpetrator program, the person that runs it, very prolific on YouTube, shall we say, within men's rights activist circles and no doubt earning a huge amount of money from running these so called programs. So we need to look at actually what do these rehabilitation programs even look like?
- [21:15]
B
Are you kidding? They're letting men with manosphere like attitudes run rehabilitation programs for violent offenders and telling them, reinforcing the beliefs that meant that they were perpetrators the first time.
- [21:32]
A
Yes. And they get a certificate at the end of it to say, congratulations, you've attended my program, you've paid so much money. And then they use that within the court system. So within family courts they will use that to say I'm rehabilitated.
- [21:45]
B
Now I should be allowed to get.
- [21:47]
A
Now I should be allowed to facilitate contact with the rape victim and see my child.
- [21:54]
B
That's the worst thing I've ever heard. My God, that is just beyond. I, I, I'm aghast. I'm really, really aghast. So we need a better system because putting people. I'm not an abolitionist either. I'm not a total abolitionist because, and I know some feminists are, but I, I don't know the answer. If somebody has such an extreme psychopathy that they are going to hurt other people in not removing them from society, I am not somebody who says, well, let's make that environment horrendous, even though they've done monstrous things to members of the community, because I don't think that puts humanity in a position of being humane. I think we as a society should say, well, we don't behave like that because you behave like that. But I also think if that person is ever released or gets out in any way, shape or form, the punishing and dehumanizing experience will make them worse and likely worse perpetrators. I do believe in community intervention, but that has to be extremely well regulated. And we all have to agree what intervention looks like. And it certainly can't be men charging other men for a certificate while secretly going, ah, she wanted it. This is what women are like, that that cannot be it and that that must be stopped.
- [23:19]
A
And it can't also be litter picking, can it? You know, or cleaning graffiti off the walls or just doing 100 hours community service, whatever that looks like, you know, it has to be meaningful intervention. And I think if you're in a position where rapists don't even accept the fact they have raped and is still denying the fact, you know, if their conviction and then they just go along with the process, you're just in the same position at the end of it, if not worse, because they think they can get away with it and therefore do it again.
- [23:48]
B
One thing I have seen that I think is very important to discuss is that there were lots of complaints about these boys to the police. I saw this in the Times. And also there's an independent journalist on Instagram called Sophie Wilkinson who went and interviewed people in the town. And she's really worth a follow. You can find her online. Girls had complained and their parents had reported to the police. Incidents such as one of these boys putting his hand up a girl's skirt, another one pinning her against a wall and telling her to take her clothes off, along with other scary kinds of behavior like lamping, going out and killing hares at night with dogs, which is illegal, criminal damage, and many, many other incidents in that town. These boys were well known to the police and there are mothers saying, but we reported this. In fact, one case was reported between the first rape where the girl was too ashamed to report it and was blaming herself, and the second rape. There was a serious report from a mother who was saying, I didn't think the police was taking this seriously enough. They were intimidating, sexually intimidating girls. Sophie was pointing out. None of this was given to the judge. So what the judge was seeing and what the judge said was, you've never been in any serious trouble before, but there were lots of incidents that showed this was a pattern. I mean, I don't really see how that matters, to be honest, given this was gang rape. But that's what the judge thought. The judge thought they'd been in no previous trouble at all with the police.
- [25:36]
A
Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile with a message for everyone paying Big Wireless way too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop with Mint. You can get premium wireless for just $15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying, no judgments.
- [25:49]
B
But that's weird.
- [25:51]
A
Okay, one judgment anyway. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment
- [25:58]
B
of $45 for 3 month plan equivalent to 15 per month required intro rate
- [26:01]
A
first 3 months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra.
- [26:04]
B
See full terms@mint mobile.com hello guilty feminists. Thank you so much for coming along to so many shows. So far all of our Museum of Comedy Road to Gilead shows have sold out and our next show on the south bank with Tracy Emin is also sold out. But you can come to our open space event which is on the 20th of June. We are no longer doing this in association with Stonewall and that means the location has moved. It is now at Town hall at St. Pancras. And if you go to guiltyfeminist.com you can find a link to that event on the homepage or the live page. This event is an open space model where anyone can come with any ideas that they've got under the Road to Gilead theme. And the Road to Gilead is really about forming a joyful resistance against the far right and creating a better existence. So you can come. You don't have to have any ideas. You can join other people's spaces, you can move from one to another, you can have an idea you're passionate about. It doesn't matter at all. As long as you want to create a kinder, fairer society, you are welcome in that room. It's a full day from 10:30 to 5 and it's £10, which includes lunch. If you cannot afford £10, don't worry, just email us@ guiltyfeministmail.com and you will have a space anyway when you book. If you could afford more than £10, there's an option to pay £20 and that means you will pay for someone else's space who couldn't afford it or who would really appreciate it. We hope as many people can come along as possible. If you can't make it on the day, you of course can set up a group wherever you are and you can zoom in for the beginning and the end so we all feel like one big exciting project. Or you can zoom in and the whole thing on zoom, as many people did last time we did it. There's been various projects that have come out of the last one so we thought we'd do it again. We hope you can make it to town hall on 20 June or zoom in or form your own group if you can't. On the 18th of July we'll be at the Isle of Wight at Ventnor Fringe 06:00pm It'll be me and Felicity Ward and some exciting Isle of Wight guests. And on the 7th and 14th July we will be at the Soho Theatre doing Edinburgh preview shows. And what that means is we will have a selection of comedians we think fit in well to the guilty feminist ethos. And if you can't get to the Edinburgh Fringe, this is your opportunity to come out and have a mini Fringe night. If you can get to the Edinburgh Fringe, this is your opportunity to see some tasters of shows and you might think oh, I'm definitely going to go and see that hour long show so come along to those if you can. They're always sold out so get tickets as soon as you can. We ourselves will be in Edinburgh from the 20th to the 23rd of August doing some road to Gilead shows. 7.30pm at the Gilded Balloon. So come along to those and watch out for more shows. If you would like to hear more about Road to Gilead open Space events, other projects we're doing and know full well when the Guilty Feminist shows are coming up so you can get in early and book, then sign up to our mailing list@greatlyfeminist.com Also if you could give our podcast a follow right now, followers subscribe or whatever it is that you do on your platform. It really helps us build the podcast and the community. So if you can do nothing else, just hit that follow button right now wherever you're listening to this and if you could pop over and give us a review and rating for any episode. You can do every episode if you want. It really helps other people find us, especially if you give us a lovely five star review. And now on with the podcast. What would you do to overhaul our justice system? Because I don't think it's as simple as these teenage boys. We should lock them up and throw away the key. Like we want a healthier society where these boys clearly need deep rehabilitation. These victims, these survivors need justice. Are the boys in our society. They read it, they see, oh well, two boys were told, well, you're still children. So okay, we're all allowed to rape girls and film it and laugh about it while we're still children. Don't do it when you're 18 you might not get away with it, but up until then you will. Like what? What would you do to overhaul this? That is humane, that does reflect a society that cares about human rights, that isn't punitive for the sake of being punitive. What would you do?
- [30:32]
A
I think, you know, you touch on an interesting point there about the torturing of animals taking place by these boys. And I'll never for a journalist saying to me that sitting in court and watching a victim being cross examined is like watching a wounded animal being tortured. And so we see how that torturing that takes place by perpetrators where the sexual violence or towards an animal and then we see it play out again in the courtroom. So the law and the legal system and the court become another vehicle to continue that abuse or weapon, if you like lawfare. And that should never be allowed. And so what do I think should change? I would support advocates such as the Victims Commissioner Claire Waxman obe, who has called for an overhaul in terms of victims engagement within the criminal justice system. What I mean by that is that they are not parties in their own right, they are witnesses. So the Crown, the state brings a case on behalf of them, they ordinarily will get no access to any of the material, disclosure, witness statements and so forth within the criminal case. They might not even meet their barrister in advance of the trial. And if they do, it may only be for a very short period of time. So they're often left completely on their own and isolated. I think one of the great reforms that I'd encourage the government to introduce, but I suspect they won't because it cost a huge amount of money, is that they should have their own representation and they should have party status within the criminal trial so that they can cross examine through their barrister themselves. And they would have access to all of the information. So they're reading the defendant's witness statement and they can say that's clearly factually untrue. I have a text message which contradicts that. They can easily rebut it there and then instead of having to go through, a barrister may be representing the cps, for instance, who may not necessarily run through that with them. It means as well that when they give evidence they would have someone who can talk them through that process, I think, and perhaps a more enhanced way and also allow them to be able to sit within that courtroom in some sort of context which is safe for them and their family as a party rather than a witness. They can watch the trial unfold at the moment. Sometimes they're told, well you've given your evidence, you can go home now. And they might want to sit and listen to the rest of the case. But the option for them obviously depends on the case, might be to sit in the gallery. Obviously they wouldn't do and, and I know some family members will do that and they can experience a lot of hate, shall we say, from some of the defendants families. So I think that's one significant reform. I think the other is that I do think that punishment is an important part of the process for victims as well as sometimes offenders. But I think that punishment process needs to be completely reformed. For instance, in a case of this nature, I think the boys should have gone to prison. So say that's a young offenders institution. That young offenders institution should be built with the purpose of rehabilitation but within the confines of that centre. So that it is very much. It's an intensive process and it's something where there are clear professionals understand the complex dynamics of sexual violence and can work with them on a one to one basis over a period of time there's a program of work that is carried out rather than just leaving them to their own devices. So.
- [34:10]
B
Or letting them go through a manosphere course with a certificate at the end.
- [34:14]
A
Exactly.
- [34:16]
B
That's really horrified me. So I once watched a documentary about Borstall's juvenile detention centres and around the world they have a over 90% recidivus rate. Like if you go to borstal you will reoffend because they're a place where you learn how to commit more crimes. They're a place where you're encouraged to commit crimes in as much as you've got to do this to get that. They're a place where you're bullied and you then wish to bully others. If You've, you know, been backed into a corner enough where you're. All the edges are knocked off. Your own vulnerability, your own fear, and so on and so on. There was one that was different, and it was Denmark, and they had, I think, a less than 1 or 1% recidivist rate. And the school was like. It was a school, really. It was like a boarding school, but it was like a posh boarding school. And they all had, like, a really nice uniform. They just educated them. They made them all play teen sports. They all had to play an instrument. They all had to be in plays, watch plays, and talk about the different characters, points of view, which really builds empathy. Like, oh, you think about this differently. And they were busy morning, noon and night, but they were constantly being told, not only you can become a functional member of society, you will become a functional member of society. You are valuable, you have talent, you have skill. We will upskill you. You don't have to be that person. You don't have to be somebody who is considered to be a scourge on society, a violent member of society, left out of society, no choice but to operate in this underworld. You absolutely need to be educated and deserve to be educated, and you will learn how to be a functional, positive member of society. And loads of them came out of that detention center and went to university because something in there clicked and they went, oh, I'm not in the margins, I'm not in the gutter, I'm not outside. This is not the best I can do or the best I can be or the only option for me. And that really stayed with me. And I remember saying, why don't we do that? And somebody said, well, then people would complain here. They'd say, but that kid who went shoplifting is now in a better school than my son, who's never done anything wrong. And people would complain. They wouldn't have it because they'd say, why are my tax dollars going to educate a criminal when my child isn't being educated well enough? And I'm like, well, then we just make all the schools good, make all the schools great. Put loads of arts funding, loads of musical funding, loads of sports funding into all the schools. Make. What about if we made the school so good that there was less crime in the first place, there was more opportunity. And that, I think, is the answer. So what you're saying is in the case of a violent sex crime, a custodial sentence you think is necessary. And again, everyone has their own views on this and there'll be lots of people who work in the judiciary system and the legal system who have very different thoughts from this. But your thought is, yes, a custodial sentence, but one that is meaningful, that allows that child or young person to come to a better place and a better understanding.
- [37:42]
A
Yeah, I think what you're describing in terms of the example of Denmark, really powerful and I'd love to see how that works in practice. And, you know, if it results in 1% recidivism, that is incredible. How can we not support that as a society? So I mean, something of that nature. I think the punishment element, I suppose, is the fact that you can't necessarily leave that school or that institution, that environment, and there's a program of work that needs to be carried out. I would think that sounds absolutely fantastic. And I think as a society, as a whole, to have a good society, a wholesome society, one that's based on respect, mutuality, social contract, I think measures such as that would be welcomed out of thought in this country. But I don't see the government spending on that and instead just cutting the places in young offenders institutions is not the answer. Because what's the alternative? And I don't think the government does have an alternative. It does have a plan. And that's my concern, that we're just allowing children to walk away without any plan of action in place to prevent reoffending.
- [38:49]
B
We bring juries in for trials, although they're now talking about taking that away. But we need a lot more, I think, committees, large committees of people deciding how are we going to deal with certain things. We need more community forums, I think, where we talk it out and we hear from experts and we say, well, this, this is best practice in this country. Kids, you know, do a lot better and they grow up to be better people. Should we have a go at trying this? But we do, we think we do need more thinking, more discussing, more agreeing as a society. Democracy can't just be ticking a box once every four years and then letting people do whatever they want. Like that's, it's wild. Like, why are you and a lot of other people who have good values and expertise not being asked to consult for the government about what best practice might look like for community intervention or for even, you know, where it's necessary to take people out of society and rehabilitate them separately so they don't hurt anyone else. Why are you not being consulted and other people are not being consulted? Is it just money?
- [40:01]
A
I, I think a lot of it is resource driven and I Think the other thing is that perhaps the government feels that it's not politically viable. And I say that because of, for example, the Reform Party or those that perhaps more on the right will say, you know, we're going to be tough on crime. And that makes headlines, you know, the idea of being soft on crime and sending young boys to a posh boarding school or the equivalent. You could just imagine the headlines, couldn't you, in the Daily Mail, as opposed to going to, as you described, a ball stall.
- [40:31]
B
Exactly. Oh, we're paying, you know, 30 grand a year or whatever to send our kids to this boarding school. But you can go for free if you tell your kid to go down and hold up a corner store with a knife.
- [40:42]
A
Exactly. But the reality is young offenders institutions, just like prisons, they're extremely expensive. Quite a lot of them are privatized as well, so run by the private sector. The government has contracts with them. And so, you know, it's not cheap for kids to go off to these institutions either. And perhaps there's a better way of spending public money on trying to rehabilitate young boys and men and those that are perpetrators of sexual acts, particularly, I think, at a young age, I think is so critical because, you know, the judge said himself that they are children. That doesn't mean, of course, that they don't bear responsibility for their behaviors and actions. Of course they do. But it does mean that perhaps some sort of earlier intervention, before they'd even raped the first girl, if the police were aware of their criminality, whether it was low level offending or whether it was, you know, moving up and escalating to sexual violence, had they have intervened early on, it might never have happened. Exactly. Might never.
- [41:42]
B
Because there was definite groping and sexual. That, that is sexual assault. What they were doing. They had sexually assaulted before. But the police, in the report I read, in the newspaper, report I read, said that the police said there wasn't enough evidence because there wasn't a camera and they were looking for cctv. And I'm like. But, you know, but you're local police and these are local boys. And you do know, because there were complaint, there was complaint after complaint after complaint after complaint, you know. Yeah, you do know.
- [42:13]
A
I find this whole idea that there's not enough evidence or that sometimes I'll read, even in police reports, there's no evidence, I think. Well, of course there's evidence. The evidence. Evidence from the victim, the complainant, they've given evidence. We don't live in a country where you need three women or three men to testify that this individual is a perpetrator. Her evidence alone should be enough. What kind of message are we sending out that girls and women shouldn't be believed on the basis of their own word? This is why I think, you know, when Times up happened and MeToo movement, the hashtag was believe women. Because on the whole, they're not. Unless there's supporting or corroborative evidence, such as cctv, police won't take it further, often won't believe them. And I think that is really damning indictment of our society. We know how prevalent sexual violence is.
- [43:01]
B
Yes. There is an assumption that unless we've caught it on camera, that it probably didn't happen. Or at least we don't have enough evidence.
- [43:07]
A
Giselle Pellico.
- [43:09]
B
Yeah.
- [43:09]
A
You know what happened to her? There are horrific rapes and violence perpetrated by her husband. More than 50 defendants, rapists. If that hadn't have been caught on tape, would she have been believed?
- [43:21]
B
And also the. The audacity of the man to film it himself. And then he filed it on his computer under abuse. And you go, well, there you are. And then still those men, still some of those men said, oh, no, I thought she was consenting.
- [43:34]
A
I thought she was consenting. And then we see in the Hampshire case where the judge says, I think these boys didn't understand consent. I mean, my goodness, is consent really that much of a difficult concept? If a boy or man feels too awkward to ask a woman whether she is consenting to have sex, shouldn't be having sex in the first place? You know, if it's that uncomfortable. I mean, these boys were not asking for consent.
- [43:58]
B
You know, there was, there was.
- [43:59]
A
You don't need a knife.
- [44:00]
B
There is no gray area in this at all.
- [44:03]
A
But what does this say about the judge, His Honour Judge Nicholas Rowland, who decided that he didn't want to criminalize these boys, quote, unnecessarily and allowed them to walk free and praise them? What does it say about the judge? What does it say about the criminal
- [44:21]
B
justice system and his view of what consent is?
- [44:23]
A
What his view of what consent is, what message does that send out to other victims that are watching what happened in that case and think, should I bother reporting a rape? And we know when it comes to Zona, Judge Nicholas Rowland, and certainly I found one other case that His Honour Judge Nicholas Rowland imposed a unduly lenient sentence where a woman had been raped at work. And that case had gone to the Court of Appeal as well. So it suggests a pattern of behavior by this particular judge. And I think the real concerns are about a lack of accountability for judges when they behave in such egregious ways. And it's not, you know, the impact on this one case, which is enough, by the way, when it comes these two girls that will suffer a lifetime of trauma consequences as a result. But it's the message it sends out to everyone in society. Perpetrators, you're walk free victims, what's the point in reporting? And this judge effectively can continue entirely unscathed. Because even if the sentence, so we know it's going to. The Attorney General's referred it to the Court of Appeal on the basis it's unduly lean and I'm representing one of the survivors in that particular case. Even if the Court of Appeals say, yep, it's an unduly lenient sentence, we're going to change that. That judge still sits on the bench.
- [45:40]
B
Yeah.
- [45:41]
A
And they're still making decisions in other cases. Would you, Deborah, have confidence going in front of that judge if you were a victim?
- [45:48]
B
No. Because you don't know who you're going to get.
- [45:49]
A
No.
- [45:50]
B
So I could go up, I could have all the evidence. You know, these are two girls and at least one of them was filmed. There is no world where a 26 pound fine. And do they have to do any community service or rehabilitation of any sort?
- [46:06]
A
Yes, I think that they do. Yes. I think there is a direction for that. Yes. What that looks like, I don't think that the victim's families know and I don't know if there's enough transparency around that. But I think coming back to the judge that imposed this unduly lenient sentence, or shall I say no sentence at all because it's non existent. I question whether he should be allowed to remain on the bench after this particular case as well. As you mentioned, you know, other cases while that he's presided over sexual violence with unduly lenient sentence and at least one according to the Court of Appeal, because I think arguably one might say that this judge is bringing the system into disrepute because how can you have confidence in it with judges of this nature sitting on the bench? So as part of representing one of the survivors of the Hampshire case, the family are, are considering bringing a complaint about the judge, the Judicial Complaints Information Office, the jcio. But you know, I think that the jcio, having had experience with them myself, in terms of making complaint about a bullying, harassing judge, that process is not transparent, it's opaque. The complaint body itself sits in the same building as the judges. And it's judges that decide whether other judges have engaged in misconduct. So they're policing themselves.
- [47:34]
B
So then. And they're all mates. So no doubt it's, it's called a
- [47:38]
A
boys club for a reason, I think. So can you have confidence in that system? And you have to bring a complaint within three months of the behaviour, otherwise you're out of time. Three months.
- [47:49]
B
So if you are processing it, distraught, thinking, I guess this is just the way it is, and then, then three months and a day later you go, hold on, this isn't okay. We've got ourselves together as a family, we've processed it, we've had some therapy, we want to make a complaint. Too late, door shut.
- [48:02]
A
If you're one day out of time. Too late, door closed. And the fact when I spoke to the survivor and their family about this, they didn't even know there was a three month time limit. Because most people wouldn't, would they?
- [48:11]
B
And they don't tell them no.
- [48:12]
A
They've got far too much on their plate. Imagine having to deal with all of this and on top of it, you've got to get a complainant within three months, otherwise the doors close. Who is that system built for? It's not built for survivors, is it? It's built for protecting the judic. Luxury.
- [48:27]
B
Yes. And sometimes people don't even survive. They're, they, they're dead. And their families are trying to get that kind of justice. They're not even survivors. And you just go, this is, as you say, built to protect the powerful and make sure that judges look after each other. And I'm sure there are some great judges who won't do that, who will uphold a complaint. I'm not casting aspersions on all judges, but the system is built not to protect the survivors and the victims.
- [48:57]
A
Yes, I think that's my concern. It's the systemic injustice and the problems within it. And I think we need that shake up of the system. Baroness Harriet Harmon, she did a report on behalf of the Bar Council last year, I believe it was, and as part of that report, she recommended removing the three month time limit, along with other changes through the judicial complaint process. And they haven't been implemented. Astonishingly so. Others have been calling for reform in this process. This may be, I would say, a prime opportunity to do that. I represented a number of victims in the initial stages who had had the misfortune of encountering a man named Judge Philip Lancaster in the Employment tribunal and he had allegedly engaged in bullying and sexist behavior towards a number of women who had been in front of him. And these women had bravely made complaints to the Judicial Complaints Information Office and had effectively been turned away. And their complaints had not been taken seriously, even though there was arguably a pattern of behavior that had to go all the way to a senior court level in order for the JCIO to just investigate him. So they had to instruct several lawyers, they had to crowdfund and it's taken, you can imagine, months, if not years to get there, to get some semblance of justice. And we still don't know what the outcome of that investigation is going to be.
- [50:22]
B
The girl you're representing in this case, you will try and get her justice. Do you think that will bring her some kind of healing if that sentence can be changed?
- [50:31]
A
Yes, I think that it will. I mean, the Attorney General has referred it to the Court of Appeal and the based on Julie Lenient, we will be representing one of the victims and her family throughout that process to guide them and support them through it. And they've called on the Prime Minister to meet with them. They want to explain the profound impact that this has had and the Prime Minister should listen to them. You know, this case, I think has stirred up a huge amount of public sentiment, certainly and concern and worry, anxiety about what could happen to their girls, to them, to their family members. And so absolutely, we'll support them through that. And if they decide to make a complaint about the judge within the three month time limit, we will support them through that process and represent them as well. We'll do everything that we can. I set up a firm called Proudman's. It's a law firm with the sole purpose of providing a trauma informed approach and making sure that victims are heard and are able to properly communicate within the justice system, which so very often isolates and disenfranchises them. And so it's a great honor to be able to represent survivor and I do hope that we're able to secure justice for her.
- [51:45]
B
Well, thank you very much for setting up Proudman's and doing something very, very active and constructive and addressing the problems that you see in our legal system. And we hope everybody reads he said, she said Truth, trauma and the struggle for justice in family court, but also follows this case. And we really do hope that public opinion, the court of public opinion, can influence our courts. Because right now this, this sentence, as I say, with all of the complexity around custodial sentences that I always feel, yeah, we are sending a message in a world That a footstool or a car that's parked too long is more important than a girl or a woman and, you know, her life ahead. I saw you say something very profound about what happens when an offender like this, of this magnitude goes free for the survivor. Could you just tell us what you said?
- [52:48]
A
I think for these survivors, and certainly for my client, when she and they know that the rapists are out within their community, in their area, their whole world becomes a prison. You know, they are locked in. They don't know if they're going to bump into them. They're hyper vigilant, they're experiencing, no doubt post traumatic stress type symptoms.
- [53:13]
B
They stay home, they don't go and hang out in the park with their friends. They don't go down to the corner shop as a teenager to buy a, a chocolate bar or, or they don't want to walk to school on their own. They don't want to be at school.
- [53:25]
A
Presumably life imprisonment for them. It's worse than, I think, simply saying the boys have walked through, that's the end of it. For the girls, that's a lifetime of trauma, harm, pain, anxiety, no doubt anger and rage as well, all mixed in. But more than anything, the whole world becomes a prison and that's. That is the consequence of the judge's decision to allow them to walk free. He gives them a sentence of lifetime in prison.
- [53:56]
B
That's very profound and something we all need to think about. Charlotte Proudman, thank you so much for joining us on the Guilty Feminist today. It's been a true privilege to have you and I know that this episode is going to be shared far and wide by our listeners. Please do share it. Send a link to it in your WhatsApp groups to people who you think might be interested or you think might need to be interested who haven't engaged with this story. Because I think there was a lot of really interesting things that Charlotte was able to bring to the conversation. Really appreciate you talking about this at short notice, Charlotte, and can't wait to have you on a lunch episode soon.
- [54:31]
A
Absolute pleasure, Deborah, as always, and I love your podcast. I'm a huge, huge fan. Thank you so much as well for airing this and for speaking about such an important issue, which I know is a national conversation, if not international. Thank you.
- [54:44]
B
Thank you. You have been listening to the Guilty Feminist with me, Deborah Frances White and my very special guest, Charlotte Proudman. The Guilty Feminist theme tune was composed by Mark Hodge. The producer for the Spontaneity Shop was Tom Zielinski. Thanks to Ned Sedgwick, Gina dicio, and Zainab Mohammad, as well as all of you for listening. For more information about this and other episodes, visit guiltyfeminist.com.