Listening to the hideous details in judge Mr Justice Bennathan’s closing statement at the sentencing of Russell Brand on Monday, setting out the rapist’s crimes with stomach-turning clarity, was enough to make anyone demand change.
Just a day later came the long-awaited Guardian and ITV News investigations into claims David Walliams had preyed on women and girls as young as 15. The author and comedian denies the allegations and he is not facing any criminal charges.
I’m going to look at two specific measures and potential law changes that have been brought up over the past few days – what they would achieve, and whether they would really make a difference.
Defence barrister Ian Winter KC said none of the women ‘resisted or screamed or had even tried to leave’. Of course, that is true for many victims of rape and sexual assault, and it does not mean nothing happened to them.
Want to understand how politics affects your day to day?
Metro's Senior Politics Reporter Craig Munro breaks down the biggest stories of the week into easy-to-understand explanations in his politics newsletter Alright, Gov? – sign up here.
Waxman wants a law requiring judges at every rape trial to explain myths like these to the jury, a call that was supported by Met Police chief Sir Mark Rowley.
But it has met some resistance from lawyers who say long-standing guidance already exists for judges directing juries in rape trials. Lord Burnett, a former Lord Chief Justice, told the House of Lords it would be ‘unprecedented’ for Parliament to tell judges how to direct juries.
They argue it risks confusing the jury if the judge is required to run through a list of myths in a case where it is not relevant, and it should be up to their discretion. Advocates of the change suggest they can’t always be relied upon.
The second measure was raised by Baroness Louise Casey in an interview with LBC this morning.
Citing the allegations against Walliams, which are not the subject of criminal charges and have not been tested in court, she said her audit on grooming gangs last year had recommended that all cases of sex with someone under the age of 16 are classed as rape.
It may surprise some readers to learn this isn’t already the case – certainly, the comments beneath many court stories posted on social media indicate the law around this isn’t widely understood by the public.
Currently, any sexual activity with a child aged under 13 is automatically classed as rape. But if they are aged 13, 14 or 15, then it is simply classed as ‘sexual activity with a child’, and it is only considered rape if lack of consent is proven.
The UK government liked Baroness Casey’s idea so much, they are indeed changing the law to that effect in England and Wales. Scotland’s independent legal system will continue to consider cases involving 13 to 15-year-olds differently.
These two ideas may well have an impact on trials in the future. But Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has been clear that she believes cases of exploitation and abuse are happening in the TV industry and elsewhere right now.
To end that culture for good, it will take a proper reckoning.
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
MORE: Brits need to prep their bank accounts for doomsday too — it’s easier than you think
MORE: Jonathan Ross’ weasel words on David Walliams aren’t enough
MORE: MPs shout ‘shame’ at Kemi Badenoch over Russell Brand quip aimed at Ed Miliband