A woman supported by Centre for Women’s Justice (CWJ) finally has justice after years of police failings and delays.
On 8 May 2024, Paul Green was sentenced to 16 years imprisonment for anal rape, assault by penetration, and two counts of causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent following a trial at Sheffield Crown Court and a long and nightmarish battle by his victim to secure justice.
The woman, who has chosen to be known as ‘Amanda’, met Paul Green, then in his mid-40s, after connecting on a dating website in 2018. Having gained Amanda’s trust, they met for a second date at his flat, where his behaviour dramatically changed. He became violent, sadistic and sexually abusive. Amanda was threatened, subjected to verbal abuse, beaten, strangled, raped and sexually assaulted. Mr Green also rubbed vomit onto her face and tried to make her taste faeces.
Amanda, who was in severe pain and had injuries, escaped Mr Green’s flat after he fell asleep, and drove herself immediately to hospital, where she disclosed that she had been a victim of sexual violence. She was examined, and agreed to be taken to the police station, where she was interviewed about the offences.
Almost a year later, in 2019, after hearing nothing on the case for several months, Amanda repeatedly sought an update from South Yorkshire Police on their progress. She was left in disbelief when she was informed that they had actually decided to close her case the previous month. In the letter from South Yorkshire Police, regarding the decision, Amanda was told that there would be difficulties in convincing a jury that she had not consented, in part because an examination of Mr Green’s electronic devices showed he wanted a relationship with Amanda – even though, the police accepted, she had been subjected to violence.
With support from CWJ, she requested a formal review of that decision, the outcome of which was that the case should be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for a charging decision. Despite this, and without a referral ever being made, Amanda’s case was to be closed again by South Yorkshire Police the following year. By this time, it had come to light that some key records, including CCTV footage, had been lost by the police, while other relevant evidence had never been gathered.
Amanda then had to challenge the CPS who, when asked to consider the case, twice refused to prosecute. In all Amanda had to rely on the ‘Victims’ Right to Review’ procedure a total of four times, before a Specialist Prosecutor agreed that there was in fact sufficient evidence to try the case.
Sadly, Amanda’s ordeal was not yet over, as the first trial of Mr Green resulted in a hung jury. After she bravely agreed to go through with a re-trial, Mr Green was convicted by a second jury of four serious sexual offences arising from Amanda’s account nearly six years after she first reported to the police.
‘BDSM’ defence
Mr Green has maintained throughout that he is a sexually ‘dominant’ person and thought he and Amanda were engaging in consensual ‘BDSM’ role-play, a suggestion which Amanda – and, it appears, the jury – categorically rejected.
On 8 May, Mr Green appeared in Sheffield Crown Court, where he was sentenced to 16 years imprisonment, and required to sign onto the Sex Offenders Register for life.
At the hearing, Mr Green’s Defence suggested – in mitigation – that this was perhaps a sexual encounter involving “intermittent consent” where it was acknowledged that “things had gone wrong” and some boundaries had been overstepped. Her Honour Judge Rachael Harrison, sentencing Mr Green, robustly rejected this suggestion.
She told Mr Green she was sure from what she had heard that Mr Green had “planned” to take advantage of Amanda while she was “vulnerable” and that Mr Green’s violence, and his “unpleasant, threatening and abusive” behaviour “went far beyond” anything that Amanda had ever “agreed to”. She noted that Mr Green had only stopped what he was doing when he chose to, and not in response to Amanda crying or pleading with him to stop.
Amanda appeared via video link to read out her Victim Impact Statement, in which she said: “The hardest thing is that I have to admit I am a victim, that’s what he wanted, to hurt and degrade me until he broke me...He wanted to break me and I am broken.”
Judge Harrison regarded as aggravating factors the “additional humiliation and degradation” to which Mr Green had subjected Amanda and the “severe psychological harm” which Amanda had evidently suffered.
Criminal justice failings
Questions remain for South Yorkshire Police and the CPS as to why they declined to take action against Mr Green for so long. A detective involved in the original police investigation was found guilty of misconduct and issued with a written warning in April 2024, following a complaint by Amanda about his handling of her case.
The misconduct investigation exposed concerns that there had been ‘little to no supervision’ of detectives working on sexual offence cases within the unit at the time. Communications from police, and prosecutors, about their decision-making suggested, to CWJ, a lack of understanding of the law surrounding violence in the context of sex.
Amanda, speaking out following the sentencing of Mr Green, said:
“Had any person on the street inflicted the violence and degradation I was subjected to that night there would have been no question as to their guilt. So to understand as long as they rape you too, they can claim you consented to your own abuse horrifies me. The impacts of this attack on my life have been overwhelming, but the effects of the system telling you that no-one will believe you, that you can’t prove you didn’t want to be viciously abused. That they would rather pressure and gaslight a victim into giving up, than admit their own failings, have been catastrophic. I have continued to fight this case, accepting the horrific effects of reliving this again and again because I cannot and will not accept for my daughters and all women that this is ok. It is not ok.
“I give my thanks to the Centre for Women’s Justice, to one female officer, to the eventual CPS link, and ultimately to the judge and jury of my peers for hearing the truth.”
Kate Ellis, a solicitor at CWJ, who has represented Amanda since 2019, said:
“It is clear from Judge Harrison’s sentencing decision that she recognised the severe harm and humiliation caused by Paul Green’s violent, misogynistic sexual behaviour. She has been absolutely clear that nothing about this behaviour was appropriate or consensual. I am concerned however that it took so long for South Yorkshire Police, and indeed the Crown Prosecution Service, to reach the same conclusion.
“Given wider evidence of the increasing normalisation of violence in sex, both in real life and online, it is reassuring that neither the judge nor the jury seem to have accepted Mr Green’s defence that this was an acceptable way to treat a woman.”
Harriet Wistrich, Director of CWJ, said:
“It is deeply troubling that there was such great reluctance from the criminal justice system to hold this dangerous man accountable. If it were not for the tenacity of Amanda – who was driven by a concern that other women were at risk from this violent perpetrator – and for Centre for Women’s Justice, who engaged repeatedly in challenging cowardly decision-making by South Yorkshire Police and the Crown Prosecution Service, then this man would have been left free to attack again.”
ENDS
Explanatory Notes:
The so-called ‘rough sex defence’: In 2021, the Domestic Abuse Act recognised in statute for the first time the long-established legal principle that ‘consent’ is not a defence to the intentional infliction of violence in a sexual context if it results in actual bodily harm or more serious injury. In other words, even if evidence is lacking that a complainant ‘refused’ consent, or there is positive evidence that she acquiesced to such violence, the accused will still be guilty of an offence.
Although the law in this regard is clear, there has always been a possibility that convicted defendants would be able to convince a judge that their sentence should be significantly reduced to reflect the fact that (on their account) the victim did not actually object to the violence. The campaign group ‘We Can’t Consent To This’, which was established in response to the increasing use of “rough sex” defences to the killing or violent injury of women and girls, has found that since the 1990s there have been at least 60 women in the UK who have been killed, and many more injured, in cases involving dangerous violence during sex. In many of these cases, the perpetrators appeared to have been handed sentences significantly (and disproportionately) lower than would been the case had they not contended that the violence was for the purpose of sexual gratification.
In 2023, an independent Domestic Homicide Sentencing Review commissioned by the Government also raised concerns about this issue, prompting the Government to announce, in February 2024, tougher sentencing provisions for manslaughter involving abusive, degrading, or dangerous sexual behaviour.
The Victims’ Right to Review (VRR) Scheme: The VRR Scheme enables victims to ask for a decision by the police or the CPS not to charge their perpetrator to be reviewed by another officer or prosecutor to assess if the decision was the wrong. The right also arises if the CPS has decided to discontinue a prosecution or offered no evidence.
In our experience many cases, including Amanda’s are closed on the basis of rape myths and stereotypes, without important evidence being gathered, and/or on an incorrect application of the law. Without legal advice, survivors struggle to challenge criminal justice agencies when errors are made.
Had our client not had recourse to the VRR Scheme she would never have been able to obtain justice. Sadly, at CWJ we hear too often that survivors are not even told that they can request the decision to close their close their case be reviewed, thereby denying them the opportunity to challenge it by omission.
This is one of many reasons why independent legal advice and representation should be available for survivors. Legal advice and assistance enables survivors to obtain a meaningful explanation from the police and the CPS of the reasons for a decision to take No Further Action (NFA) against their perpetrator, assess the validity of reasons given for an NFA decision, and where appropriate draft legal representations challenging the decision.
Click here to see our advice leaflet on the VRR scheme.Delays in rape cases: Amanda, having finally succeeded in convincing the CPS to prosecute Mr Green, then had an agonising year-long wait to see her perpetrator stand trial for the first time, and another year-long wait for the re-trial. Sadly, this is not an uncommon occurrence and a story which hundreds of survivors will unfortunately find all too familiar.
Currently, on average it takes 358 days for a trial to conclude in the Crown Court after it is sent when the defendant is on bail. In January 2024 there were 3,355 rape cases in England and Wales awaiting trial, over 181 of had been sent to the Crown Court at least two years ago. Lord Justice Edis announced earlier this year in March that those cases will be either be listed or heard by the end of July 2024. There is also an initiative to reduce the average 358 day wait time, but with 66% of defence barristers and 64% of prosecutors reporting they will not re-apply to be on the list of accredited rape and serious sexual offences (RASSO) barristers, due in large part to the low pay they receive for their work, only time will tell if this ambition is actually achieved.