 Dwi'n gweithio i gael, a gweithio i chi, mae'n gweithio a'n fflaenig i'w gweithio i'r ddechrau. Yn gweithio i'w gweithio i'w gweithio i'w gweithio i'w gweithio i'w gweithio i'w gweithio i'w gweithio i'w gweithio i'w gweithio i'w gweithio. Dwi'n rhoi'n cael ei gwybod yma. Jimmy Savill wedi gweithio ar y tîm 2011. Efallai bod yn gweithio i'w gweithio. Yn y cwylwch 12 oed, ym mighterio'r rhaglen yn cychwynoli ar hyn mae'n argygrifio'r gweithio yn ei hyn ymwys. Yn y cwylwch 12, y cops mexplot dechme yn ffobos, mae'n cael ei yw beth o'r orfer o'r iawn i wanderon, bod nid yw ddod o gweithio i'w gweithio i'w gweithio a'u gweithio i'w gweithio. gan ychwanegi gyda'r Gwlad Gwlad Gyffredin, mae'n cael ei ddweud, mae'n gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r Gwlad Gwlad Gwlad Gyffredin a'r Gwlad Gyffredin, o bryd o'r amser, a'r ddweud y cwylgech yn ei ddweud, ac rwy'n golygu'r gweithio eich gweithio, mae'n gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio. Mae gweithio'r gweithio mewn cyntaf o'r 2012 a'r gweithio'r gweithio yn janyn nhw, i'r 13, So, just three, three and a half months later. During that time, the U-Tree team of police officers saw 600 individuals who claimed that Jimmy Savill had abused them. 224 of those the police said were recordable crimes. In other words, had that information on its own been available during Jimmy Savill's lifetime, they would have investigated it as a recordable crime. How many of those 224 do you think came forward during Jimmy Savill's life for? So, 220 of the 224, and that's probably not all of the victims, said absolutely nothing to anybody about what Jimmy Savill had done to them. And they were asked by the U-Tree team of officers who had the NSPCC working with them why they hadn't come forward. And they said, I didn't think I'd be believed. And they said I didn't think the criminal justice system could cope with me. I didn't have enough faith in the criminal justice system to even come forward and report it to anyone. That's a really serious state of affairs for anybody involved in delivering justice. The vast majority of those victims simply didn't think how a criminal justice system could cope with them. The real access to justice issue, the four that did come forward, three came forward to Surrey Police and one came forward to Sussex Police. Their cases didn't proceed because in the end no one of those victims wanted their case to go forward. There were two features about that that were interesting. First, no one victim was told there was another one out there. The police in the late 1990s had been accused of trawling for victims, telling one victim there was another victim out there. And had been scathing reports in Parliament. And they had understood that to mean you could never tell one victim there was another victim who had made an allegation, let alone the details. So each of the four never knew there were three others. And on their own they said, I don't stand a chance against a celebrity like him. I can't take him on on my own. And the police really influenced and persuaded them to that with good intention. They thought that it would be unfair on the victim to try and take on Jimmy Savile as a one-on-one with the victim. So they were saying, are you sure you want to take on Jimmy Savile? He's going to have really big gun lawyers and it's just little old you. And each of them said, no thanks. Years later when my principal legal adviser Alison Levitt went to see each of the four victims, they each said had they known there were others out there who would have, as it were, together brought the case, they would in all likelihood have taken the case forward. And that business of not taking on a celebrity resonates for us with a lot of recent cases since the operation-neutry team was set up. There have been a number of arrests, a number of prosecutions of high-profile individuals, Davey Travis, who is due to be retried on two of the charges in the near future. Nigel Evans, of course, was acquitted three weeks ago. And Max Clifford was convicted two days ago. But there was a perception before the Max Clifford verdict that we were back in the same territory. That if you were up against a high-profile individual or a celebrity, the chances of succeeding were greatly lower than they would otherwise be. So what the Jimmy Savile case told, those of us working in Cromwell Justice in England and Wales, was that the vast majority of victims of Jimmy Savile didn't have sufficient confidence in our Cromwell Justice system to come forward. Is that atypical? Is that a Jimmy Savile factor not found elsewhere? Is that something of the past? Well, I don't think so. And whilst I was director of public prosecutions, we focused a great deal on violence against women and girls and had quarterly numbers and annual numbers. And the numbers are stark. In England and Wales, there are about over a million people who are subjected to domestic violence year on year. But only about one in ten of those ever comes forward. And on average, most victims suffer 35 instance of domestic abuse before they come forward. The ratio for serial sexual assault, including rape, is one in ten coming forward. So there's a vast mismatch between the incidents of sexual and personal violence and the likelihood of people coming forward. And so that issue as to whether people have confidence to come forward is a real issue that I think is there and has to be confronted. And if this was any other area of law or life, those figures would disturb everybody. We'd all see it as a fundamental access to justice issue. If most people who were entitled to housing benefit didn't claim it, only less than 10% would say there's something wrong with the system. In the provision of any service, if under 10% came forward, you'd say you've got your system set wrong. People don't feel they can come forward. But in criminal justice, we've never seen it properly as an access to justice issue. So then what happens if people do come forward? So far as England and Wales is concerned, so far the information provision has been patchy. Sometimes people are told what's going on in their case but not always and they're very often not kept up to date. Sometimes there's consultation on decisions and information about decisions but again it's patchy. There's a limited right of review. What do you do if you're a victim? You've come forward, you've cooperated with the police investigation and the net result is that the prosecutor says we're not going to bring a case. What can you do? In England and Wales last year we introduced what we call the victim's right of review, which is the right to ask for the decision to be looked at again. But that only applies to the prosecutor's decision. It doesn't apply to the police decision. Counseling in our system is not uniform. It's a very big issue. If you have just come forward and reported rape, let's say, that can have a profound effect on an individual and very often people in a real state and they want to know whether they can have any counseling or support. The standard list of options in England and Wales is usually in this order, you're probably better off not doing it. Next option, well if you do have counseling try and stay off this topic. The victim looks pretty bemused. This is the one thing that's been keeping awake for the last few weeks and months if not longer. Or third option, have counseling. You can talk about this abuse but you need to know that you know the guy you just said did it. We may have to give all your notes to him and the chin of the people that we've had those conversations with as they're given, those are their three options. Gets closer and closer to the ground as they realise there is no private space for you to have any support or backup. Now you've come forward and made an allegation and as you may know in the last 12 months in England and Wales we've had some high profile suicides, a woman called Francis Andrade in Manchester committed suicide at the end of her cross-examination in a rape case involving a music school in Manchester. And then earlier this year Tracy Shelvely who brought an allegation of rape saw the jury reject that, climbed on to the roof of a shopping centre in Rochdale and killed herself. And the resounding message from most of the people who've come forward and been through our criminal justice system is, I'd never do it again and I'll tell my family and friends never to do it. And that was very stark for us in the child sexual exploitation cases. We had, as you probably saw, a number of cases involving groups of men abusing girls. The biggest case was in Rochdale and then there have been subsequent trials all over England and Wales. And because of the gang nature of that and the way the indictments had to be split up we quite often required the victim to give evidence in more than one trial. And they uniformly told us exactly what we could do after trial one and we never got one of them ever to return to court and they said, I don't care whether perpetrator gets off, I don't care if I'm letting everybody else down, I'm never going back. So we've got a pretty profound situation. Most vulnerable victims don't come forward. If they do come forward they say never do it again and that's the message that they're sending to anybody that will listen to them. So what is to be done? Now I know both here and in England and Wales at least in the last 15 years or so a number of steps have been taken to deal with the so-called rights of victims. So we introduced special measures in 1999 which allows protection for victims and witnesses in court by way of screens, video links, voice distortion and other measures and anonymity. So there are special measures available. We have what we call witness care units which are joint police and prosecutor units which are charged with providing information to victims and witnesses about where their case has got to. We had introduced 10 years ago for the first time something we call direct communication with victims. Until 10 years ago prosecutors were pretty well forbidden from ever really talking to a victim or witness. It was thought to be contrary to the adversarial principle. 10 years ago we changed that to some extent so now a prosecutor will actually speak to a victim before that that never happened. But the culture is so deep that actually getting prosecutors speak to victims is quite a difficult thing to achieve. Last year we had the latest version of our victims code. That's good. It's got lots of entitlements in it but it's not legally enforceable and therefore on the list of priorities for police and prosecutors it's there but it's not as high as something which is legally enforceable. There's no sanction if it's breached. And of course we have the EU directive coming in as you do later I think next year. So here we are. I think if you trace the adversarial system in England and Wales you can trace it back about 200 years. It's always been seen as a straight fight between the prosecution and the defence and it was so skewed in favour of the prosecution to start with that the defendant had to fight for his or her rights. So when the adversarial system in England Wales was set up there was a rule that a defendant couldn't be represented and wouldn't be allowed to give evidence and that was to save the defendant from perjuring himself. So it was thought safer and better more appropriate if they were neither represented nor given the opportunity to commit an offence by going on oath before the court they would be saved from that. And so inevitably there was a great focus on defence rights and defence rights had to be won one by one and people hold them really dearly to heart and understandably so. Culminating I think in England and Wales really would be our Police and Criminal Evidence Act in 1984 which dealt with the way suspects had dealt with in custody and required proper recording of everything that was said between police and suspects. But in all that period during most of that 200 years the words victim's rights were not even said. There wasn't a big debate about where the proper balance was between prosecutor victim and defendant and we came up with the arrangements that we got. There was no mention of victims rights. In England and Wales and I don't know what the position is here I've tried to trace the first ever victims group and I've found a little group of individuals in Bristol who met in 1979 and thought it wasn't good enough for victims but that's the first group I can find that ever started saying anything about victims rights and it took another 20 years before that ever became an established group of NGOs or others who found a real voice. So it's only in the last 15 years of our 200 year history that we've really been discussing victim rights and if the state of players as I've described it we haven't really got very far and we certainly haven't got far enough. So the question then is what do we do about it? One of the conclusions I drew at the end of my five-year term as DPP was that we needed something sharper and with a harder edge than a code. We needed a victim's law and as you may have seen the Labour Party in England and Wales has committed to a victim's law if elected in the elections next year. So they are lining up conference pledge last year to pass a victim's law. That's quite interesting just pausing that. We've been saying for years now 15 years that victims at the heart of our criminal justice system but there's never ever been anything called a victim's law. There's been lots of legislation telling you what the prosecutor can do. Lots of legislation telling you what the defence rights are. There's never been anything that's actually even had the label victims law so this will be a first. My feeling is that if the Labour Party do put it in their manifesto it is then highly likely that the other political parties will follow suit and either commit to a victim's law or at the very least say they'll consider it because it's politically difficult to argue that the one thing you're not going to do is introduce a victim's law. So for the first time for us there is now a real prospect that in our next parliament there will be passed a victim's law. A law that gives victims rights which are legally enforceable in some shape or form. Now what the Labour Party have done in order to give some shape to that is ask a number of individuals to advise them on what ought to be in the victim's law and they've called that their victim's task force and that's the task force that I'm on along with Dorian Lawrence who needs no introduction here and Peter Neroid who's a retired chief constable and now an academic at Cambridge and our job is to advise the Labour Party what they ought to put into their victim's law. They decided they'd have a victim's law but they hadn't got as far as working out exactly what would be in it and so our job is to advise them what's going to go into it and also to make wider recommendations about how the criminal justice system could be improved for victims and we have until October to report back on that project and I thought I would share with you what we think we should cover so that you know what we're doing but also so that we can then take this into a debate about how these issues are dealt with for you. The first is bridging people in dealing with the confidence issue. Most victims of personal sexual violence are very uncomfortable about reporting to a police station and I'm going to try something on you here but of all the other participation I hope you don't mind. In your mind's eye just remember what was your best ever sexual experience. Got it? Now turn to the person to your left and tell them what it was. Now most most of our this was done with a group of 200 prosecutors of mine who were specialist rape prosecutors and there was absolute silence in the room because they prosecuted, they were specialist prosecutors because they thought it was going to be followed through and that look of horror on their phone and relief when they realised that it was simply to demonstrate a point but most of us would find it really really difficult to talk about our best ever sexual experience. Imagine the worst ever and having to tell a series of strangers and then having to give that evidence in open court and having attested it just gives you a sense having gone through that exercise of just how difficult it is. So the first question is how do you bridge people in and we want to explore whether we can't for personal and sexual violence get away from the idea that you go to a police station and in various places in England and Wales we've got sexual assault referral clinics. There's a very good one in Manchester which if any of you are over I would recommend going to see. That is a centre where you can go and report sexual offending. It's in the hospital and it's staffed by clinical experts and health experts. There are police officers there but they're not the front line. They are experts in knowing what evidence needs to be taken but it is a wholly different experience to going to a police station. It is akin to going to hospital. It doesn't make it perfect. It doesn't make it easy but it is fundamentally different to going to a police station. So the first question we've put on the table to consider is, is there some way of changing the bridging in exercise? It's the same perhaps even worse for children. Most children will not go to as it were the statutory authorities if they've been abused. They will very often if they're going to say anything, say things to third party organisations and need to be bridged in from there. If we don't bridge in then we're never going to deal I don't think with the less than 10% that ever come forward in the most serious cases. We're going to look at mandatory reporting. This is a hot topic in England and Wales at the moment. Should there be a rule in relation to those that have authority over children that if they reasonably believe that there has been abuse or may be abuse that they should report it because we've seen example after example of schools and other institutions who've had just that belief and decided that the reputation of the school or other institution would be so badly damaged by telling relevant authorities that it's better to move said teacher or whoever it is to a different school and the inevitable then happened. Now that's not easy because as you can imagine teachers and others are not keen on a mandatory reporting regime. It makes life difficult for them but we are we've got on the table therefore whether there should be mandatory reporting and if so how that regime should work. And it's interesting because the NSPCC who were against mandatory reporting are now I think probably likely to change their mind and say they're in favour. The third thing we want to look at is the support and information that's provided to victims. This is classic victims right stuff a right to have certain information about where your case has got to and a sanction if you're not told what you should be told at the right time. And some real clarity about counselling where the one can ever get to the heart of the difficult counselling issue. One thing I'm clear about is that counsellers ought to be kite marked. If you've got counsellers who know what they're doing and have an understanding with the prosecutor's and with the court it is possible to give a reasonable service to victims. If you've got counsellers who don't it all falls apart but there's no rule in England and Wales that you have to be kite marked to be a counsellor that you have to prove that you understand the way the criminal justice system works and that you can give the appropriate counselling. Which supports the individual victim but without making the situation worse for them. We're going to fourthly look at the review of decisions. I've described to you the prosecutors at the moment voluntary scheme whereby a decision not to prosecute can be reviewed. The question we're looking at is whether that ought to be a statutory right whoever takes decision not to proceed with the case whether it's police or prosecutors. We want to look at the court process. There have been some spectacular examples in the last 12 to 18 months in England and Wales of very aggressive and repetitive cross-examination of young and vulnerable victims. The worst were the child sexual exploitation gang cases where not infrequently you had 10 to 12 defendants in the dock you therefore had 10 to 12 baristers representing them and in some cases the girls who were victims were cross-examined by each of the 12 in turn four days the longest I think was 56 days and a lot of the judiciary was shocked by that and there's been a recognition that that just cannot go on. At the moment all we have are what we call ground rules hearing. It is possible for a judge to have a ground rules hearing a month or so before a trial and say in this trial there will only be one council asking on each of the issues and I'm going to time limit that council in relation to how they deal with it and you'll have to carve it up amongst yourself but there's no rule about ground rules hearings it's up to the judge whether to have one and there's no procedure that has at the hard edge of a riot and then finally we want to look at support for victims after court lots of victims and their representatives have said to us it is really difficult to take in to account what's happened at court because it's such an emotional day and it's particularly bad if the individual is acquitted because victims feel that they've had a degree of support up until the hearing there's then an acquittal they're told something by the team if anything on the day that they can't take in and that's it and so we want to look at what should happen in the event of a an acquittal and what goes with that is whether there should be any framework around reviews of cases if there's been a murder and there's been an acquittal should there be a requirement that every three years or five years or whenever it is the case is looked at again the Stephen Lawrence case eventually led to convictions because it was reviewed on a number of occasions normally last review a tiny tiny speck of blood was found by techniques not available at the time as you probably know that showed that Stephen Lawrence's blood was on Gary Dobbson's jacket and had gone on wet but it was only because the case was reviewed that that ever was seen and we were able to apply to quash the acquittal in the first place and then successfully prosecute Dobbson for that murder so bridging in mandatory reporting support and information review of decisions court process and after court support so those are the issues we're looking at what I would find invaluable in the rest of the time we've got available is any questions or comments on those issues because in a sense for us 2015 is a big moment it's the first time that we're likely to get legislation I think if it's going to work it's got to obviously be the best it can be it's got to have the best consensus it can get although on this I'm on the labour party task force I think this should be a cross party issue I don't think victims rights should be anything other than established by consensus and something which will be enduring and therefore we're very keen to have as wide a debate as possible and I'm very keen to hear your views and take your questions thank you very much thank you very much