Information held by the Justice Directorate relating to the progression of rape and attempted rape cases in Scotland: FOI release

Information requested

I am seeking statistical or analytical information held by the Justice Directorate relating to the progression of rape and attempted rape cases in Scotland. Specifically, I request:

1. Any data, analysis, or internal reports concerning the progression of rape and attempted rape reports through the criminal justice system, including:
   • numbers reported,
   • numbers referred to COPFS,
   • numbers proceeding to prosecution,
   • numbers proceeding to trial (regardless of conviction).
2. Any internal analyses, briefing papers, or evaluations relating to attrition in rape cases (e.g., barriers to prosecution, evidential thresholds, corroboration issues).
3. If available, any documents or datasets summarising the impact of recent legal changes affecting rape prosecutions (e.g., corroboration reforms, distress-evidence rulings).

I am happy to receive the data in any structured digital format (Excel, CSV, or PDF). If parts of this request require refinement, please advise me and I will attempt to make edits.

Response

1. Any data, analysis, or internal reports concerning the progression of rape and attempted rape reports through the criminal justice system, including:

• numbers reported
• numbers referred to COPFS
• numbers proceeding to prosecution
• numbers proceeding to trial (regardless of conviction)

It is not currently possible to trace a specific Rape and attempted rape case all the way through the criminal justice system and so there are no data, analyses or internal reports concerning this. This issue has already been raised as part of the Victims Taskforce, and specifically as Issue 4b in the Victims Taskforce papers: June 2024. The reason it is not possible to trace a Rape and attempted rape case are complicated, but a summary is that statistics covering the various stages of the criminal justice process are recorded in different data sets sitting within different bodies that measure different things in different ways at different times. In addition, a “case” is defined differently at different stages of the criminal justice process, and these are not strictly comparable. For example, multiple police cases may be “rolled up” into a single Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) case, and a single COPFS case may appear in court statistics with multiple case numbers as it progresses through each court stage.

With specific reference to the statistics requested:

• Crimes reported to the police are published as part of the Scottish Government’s Recorded Crime in Scotland statistics. This includes annual and quarterly publications. The most recent annual publication covers the financial year 2024-25 and the most recent quarterly publication covers the year ending September 2025. The quarterly publication for year ending December 2025 is due to be published on 24 February 2026. The counting rules for crimes are laid out in the Scottish Crime Recording Standard. It should be noted that a single police case may include multiple crimes, but these statistics count crimes only and do not include information on cases. Crimes are assigned to the year they were recorded by police, which may be later than any year(s) in which they occurred. In 2024-25, a quarter of Sexual crimes reported to police were historic, meaning they occurred a year or more prior to being reported to police. The numbers of Rape and attempted rape crimes reported to police in each of the 10 years from 2015-16 to 2024-25 are already available to you in Table 1 of Recorded Crime in Scotland, 2024-25.
• Data on cases reported to COPFS are not held by the Scottish Government. COPFS are a separate body and produce their own statistics, such as: Case processing financial year 2024 to 2025. These do not include a breakdown by Rape and attempted rape. You may wish to contact COPFS directly to request this information at: Freedom of Information requests | COPFS. However, you may also be interested in the “clear-up rate” statistics also available to you in Table 3 of Recorded Crime in Scotland, 2024-25. For more details on clear-up rates please consult Recorded Crime in Scotland, 2024-25 and the User Guide to Recorded Crime Statistics in Scotland. Section 18 specifically covers clear-up rates.
• Data on people prosecuted and convicted in Scottish courts are published as part of Criminal Proceedings in Scotland. These are published on an annual basis and the most recent publication covers the 10 years to 2023-24. These statistics count people (not crimes or cases) by main charge. The main charge is the one that conferred the most severe penalty. A person may be charged with one or multiple crimes in court and a single case may have one or more accused persons. In addition, each record is assigned to the year the case concluded in court which may be in a later year than when any crime(s) were reported to police. Consequently, these statistics cannot be compared to the numbers of crimes recorded by police. The number of people prosecuted with a main charge of Rape and attempted rape in each of the 10 years from 2014-15 to 2023-24 are available to you in Table 4a of Criminal Proceedings in Scotland: 2023-2024.
• Data on whether a particular case proceeded to trial are not held by the Scottish Government. It should be noted that a trial will only occur if a person pleads not guilty and at trial they can then be either acquitted or convicted. However, if a person pleads guilty they can be convicted without a trial. Data on convictions for Rape and attempted rape are available to you in Table 4b of Criminal Proceedings in Scotland: 2023-2024. You may also be interested in conviction rates for Rape and attempted rape, which are available to you in Table 4c of Criminal Proceedings in Scotland: 2023- 2024. A conviction rate is simply the number of people convicted divided by the number of people prosecuted. Data on trials are held by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS). They publish their own statistics at Publications | Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. These do not include a breakdown by Rape and attempted rape. You may wish to contact SCTS directly to request this information at: https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/about-us/contact-us/freedom-ofinformation/.

Some of the information you have requested is available from the links mentioned above. Under section 25(1) of FOISA, we do not have to give you information which is already reasonably accessible to you. If, however, you do not have internet access to obtain this information from the website(s) listed, then please contact me again and I will send you a paper copy.

While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance the Scottish Government does not have some of the information you have requested. The reasons why we don't have the information are explained above.

This is a formal notice under Section 17(1)of FOISA that the Scottish Government does not have part of the information you have requested.

2. Any internal analyses, briefing papers, or evaluations relating to attrition in rape cases (e.g., barriers to prosecution, evidential thresholds, corroboration issues).

While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance the costs of locating, retrieving and providing the information requested would exceed the upper cost limit of £600. The request is so broad and the time period so long that our searches returned too many documents for us to analyse and assess whether they were in scope of your request. Under section 12 of FOISA public authorities are not required to comply with a request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying would exceed the upper cost limit, which is currently set at £600 by Regulations.

You may, however, wish to consider reducing the scope of your request in order that the costs can be brought below £600. For us to be able to focus any search of our records, we would require a more specific request.

You may also find it helpful to look at the Scottish Information Commissioner’s ‘Tips for requesting information under FOI and the EIRs’ on his website at: http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/YourRights/Tipsforrequesters.aspx

3. If available, any documents or datasets summarising the impact of recent legal changes affecting rape prosecutions (e.g., corroboration reforms, distress-evidence rulings).

I have interpreted this request as documents or datasets summarising the impact of the Lord Advocate’s References on corroboration (Reference 1 of 2023 and Reference 2 & 3 of 2023) and the UK Supreme Court cases of Daly v HMA and Keir v HMA).

In answering this question, I thought it might be helpful to draw your attention to two pieces of published correspondence from the Lord Advocate and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, to the Criminal Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament:

Letter from the Lord Advocate regarding the UK Supreme Court Judgement concerning sections 274 and 275 of Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act

UK Supreme Court judgement in Daly v HMA and Keir v HMA | Scottish Parliament Website

Additionally, I enclose a copy of some of the information you requested. While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance we are unable to provide some of the information you have requested because exemptions under the following sections of FOISA apply to that information:

• s.29(1)(a) - policy formulation
• s.30(b)(i) – free and frank provision of advice
• s.30(b)(ii) - free and frank exchange of views
• Section 30(c) – substantial prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs
• Section 36(1) – legal advice
• s.38(1)(b) - personal information

The reasons why those exemptions apply are explained in the Annex to this letter.

Annex

s.29(1)(a) - policy formulation

An exemption under section 29(1)(a) of FOISA (formulation or development of government policy) applies to some of the information requested because it relates to the development of policy of the Scottish Government’s policy on support for victims and witnesses. I have indicated in square brackets within the material released, where information has been redacted because of this exemption. This exemption is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption. We recognise that there is a public interest in disclosing information as part of open, transparent and accountable government, and to inform public debate. However, there is a greater public interest in high quality policy and decision-making, and in the properly considered implementation and development of policies and decisions. This means that Ministers and officials need to be able to consider all available options and to debate those rigorously, to fully understand their possible implications. Their candour in doing so will be affected by their assessment of whether the discussions on support for victims and witnesses will be disclosed in the near future, when it may undermine or constrain the Government’s

s.30(b)(i) – free and frank provision of advice

An exemption under section 30(b)(i) of FOISA (free and frank provision of advice) applies to some of the information requested. This exemption applies because disclosure would, or would be likely to, inhibit substantially the free and frank provision of advice. This exemption recognises the need for officials to have a private space within which to provide free and frank advice to Ministers before the Scottish Government reaches a settled public view. Disclosing the content of free and frank advice on the impact of legal judgements will substantially inhibit the provision of such advice in the future. I have indicated in square brackets within the material released, where information has been redacted because of this exemption.

This exemption is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption. We recognise that there is a public interest in disclosing information as part of open, transparent and accountable government, and to inform public debate. However, there is a greater public interest in allowing a private space within which officials can provide full and frank advice to Ministers, as part of the process of exploring and refining the Government’s position on the impact of legal judgement. This private thinking space is essential to enable all options to be properly considered, based on the best available advice. Premature disclosure is likely to undermine the full and frank discussion of issues between Ministers and officials, which in turn will undermine the quality of the policy and decision making process, which would not be in the public interest.

s.30(b)(ii) - free and frank exchange of views

An exemption under section 30(b)(ii) of FOISA (free and frank exchange of views) applies to some the information requested. This exemption applies because disclosure would, or would be likely to, inhibit substantially the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation. This exemption recognises the need for Ministers and officials to have a private space within which to discuss issues and options with external stakeholders. Disclosing the content of these discussions will substantially inhibit such discussions in the future, because these stakeholders will be reluctant to provide their views fully and frankly if they believe that those views are likely to be made public. I have indicated in square brackets within the material released, where information has been redacted because of this exemption. This exemption is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption. We recognise that there is a public interest in disclosing information as part of open, transparent and accountable government, and to inform public debate. However, there is a greater public interest in allowing Ministers and officials a private space within which to communicate with appropriate external stakeholders. This private space is essential to enable all options to be properly considered.

Section 30(c) – substantial prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs

An exemption under section 30(c) of FOISA (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) applies to some of the information requested. It is essential for Ministers and officials to be able to communicate, in confidence, with external stakeholders and partners on a range of issues. Disclosing the content of these communications is likely to substantially inhibit communications on this type of issue in the future. This would significantly harm the Government’s ability to carry out many aspects of its work, and could adversely affect its ability to gather all of the evidence it needs to make fully informed decisions. I have indicated in square brackets within the material released, where information has been redacted because of this exemption.

This exemption is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption. We recognise that there is a public interest in disclosing information as part of open, transparent and accountable government, and to inform public debate. However, there is a greater public interest in allowing Ministers and officials a private space within which to communicate.

Section 36(1) – legal advice

An exemption under section 36(1) of FOISA (confidentiality in legal proceedings) applies to some of the information requested because it is legal advice and disclosure would breach legal professional privilege. I have indicated in square brackets within the material released, where information has been redacted because of this exemption.

This exemption is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption. We recognise that there is some public interest in release as part of open and transparent government, and to inform public debate. However, this is outweighed by the strong public interest in maintaining the right to confidentiality of communications between legal advisers and clients, to ensure that Ministers and officials are able to receive legal advice in confidence, like any other public or private organisation.

s.38(1)(b) - personal information

An exemption under section 38(1)(b) of FOISA (personal information) applies to some of the information requested because it is personal data of a third party, ie names and contact details of individuals, and disclosing it would contravene the data protection principles in Article 5(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation and in section 34(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018. This exemption is not subject to the ‘public interest test’, so we are not required to consider if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. I have indicated in square brackets within the material released, where information has been redacted because of this exemption.

About FOI

The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at https://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.

FOI 202600504144 - Information released - Annex A

File type

PDF

File size

368.4 kB