The chief prosecutor of England and Wales has made a robust defence of the decision to prosecute historic sex cases, despite the recent acquittals of celebrities such as Dave Lee Travis and Bill Roache.
The director of public prosecutions, Alison Saunders, said the Crown Prosecution Service had confronted a culture of disbelief and would continue to attempt to bring suspected sexual abusers to justice. A review of the decision not to charge Jimmy Saville had revealed "a culture that had let down not only his victims, but many others who had not been listened to, believed, or given the chance to have a jury hear their case", she said.
The review had transformed the way sexual abuse cases were viewed, she added.
"To those who say recent high-profile acquittals show that police and prosecutors are overcompensating for past failings, I say quite simply that we are not. If we took to court only cases where, on the papers, we were certain of a conviction, we would rightly be accused of being over-cautious. Justice can only be done if prosecutors remain independent and fair, regardless of who a defendant might be."
In an article published in the Times, Saunders said rape and sexual assault cases were some of the most difficult to prosecute as they often came down to one person's word against another. Historic cases were also harder owing to a lack of forensic and corroborative evidence.
"As prosecutors we rigorously apply the same test to the evidence in every criminal case before taking it to court. That does not guarantee a conviction, but it means that we have decided that a jury should hear the evidence and that the defendant gets the opportunity to challenge it. Where there are several allegations, each must pass the same test."
She added: "Our job is not to decide innocence or guilt. We filter out cases where the evidence is too weak, but where there is sufficient evidence we must let the jury do its job. These decisions are not taken lightly, but the prosecutor does not have the benefit of testing the evidence in the way the trial process rightly allows."
Saunders defended victims who came forward years after alleged crimes had taken place and said they faced manifold difficulties.
She said: "They can often feel shame, even though the shame is not theirs to feel. They can feel the system is against them and be reluctant to expose to strangers intimate details they would prefer to forget. Who can blame them? Even with the approach now being taken by the police and CPS, including much better support, the trial process is difficult and can be deeply invasive and personal."
The acquittals, far from exposing a broken system, were in fact evidence of a robust legal system, Saunders said. "So long as our criminal justice system is working effectively, we will continue to see acquittals in these types of cases. But we are also seeing convictions. Up and down the country cases of non-recent sexual abuse and sexual assault are resulting in significant jail sentences. I use the term 'non-recent' rather than 'historic' because for victims the impact remains to this day."
Closing the article with examples of sex offenders, she pointed to a 40-year-old former teacher who is serving 12 years for offences dating back 14 years, while another individual was jailed at Lewes crown court for offences between 1964 and 1976. Another defendant was sentenced to 18 years for sexual offences going back 20 years and a 14-year sentence was passed at Maidstone crown court for offences committed in the 1960s.
"Should these prosecutions have taken place? Of course. Parliament agrees, as it has set no time limit on bringing rape and sexual offence cases, as it has for other offences. The public would be horrified if we did not prosecute because a complaint came many years after the event," she said. "It used to be that if a rape victim wore a short skirt her credibility was undermined. Thankfully we have moved on. Now we must be careful not to establish new myths that victims come forward only for financial or other motives."