This article provides some of the key findings from a larger study titled ‘Survivors’ perceptions of the efficacy of the Criminal Justice System in South Africa for adults and children affected by sexual and gender-based violence’ completed by Childline Gauteng and independent researcher, Dr. M. Weideman, in December 2021, with a grant from the Solidary Fund (administered by Tshikululu Social Investments).
The views and arguments presented in the article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any of the other parties mentioned.
The purposes of the study were to identify the factors that contributed to low conviction rates and to develop survivor-centered recommendations towards improved Criminal Justice System outcomes for adult and child survivors.
Quantitative and qualitative data collection methods were used. These included a desk-top review; 28 in-depth interviews with subject experts and the police; and a survey completed by 207 adult survivors of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV), or adults representing children who had experienced SGBV and were receiving, or had received, counselling support from Childline Gauteng.
The findings presented hold true for this specific group of respondents and, although indicative of wider patterns, cannot be generalized.
Who are the perpetrators?
Almost all the perpetrators were men (99%) most of whom were known to the survivors (79%). 47% of the perpetrators were family members. All age groups were represented among the perpetrators: 21% were child perpetrators, defined as persons aged 18 and younger; 27% were youth (aged 19 to 35); while 39% were older men. The ages of the remaining 12% are unknown.
Survivors’ help-seeking behaviors
Most survivors (84%) sought help or disclosed the incident(s) to a third party, and 75% did so within 24 hours. Most chose to first report the incident(s) to a family member (68%). Others first approached a friend (7%), a teacher (8%), the police (7%), or a non-government organization (6%). Their second port of call tended to be the police or a health facility.
Survivors’ experience with the police
Most (80%) of the survivors/caregivers (eventually) reported the incident(s) to the police. Survivors’ experiences of the police were often positive. For example, all respondents were assisted in a language they “understood well”, and most described the police as “helpful” (81%) and “kind” (82%). However, 18% described the police as “unkind”, while 16 participants said the police were abusive.
The survivors were asked to score the quality of the services provided by the police. Their responses were positive on numerous indicators: 94% agreed that “it was easy for the police officer to take my statement”; 75% said that police officers referred them to persons or institutions that provided legal or psychosocial support; 81% of the child survivors were taken to medico-legal facilities by the police; and 71% of those who went to police stations waited less than 30 minutes to be attended to (83% waited less than an hour for assistance). However, 4% waited for more than four hours, and another 3% were not attended to on the same day.
Most (77%) said their statements were taken in a private room (56%) or in a Victim Empowerment Room (21%). However, the statements of 23% of the survivors were taken in the charge office or the main reception area (sometimes because the police station did not have the required facilities).
Only 87% of those who reported the incidents to the police chose to press charges. Reasons for not pressing charges included being dissuaded from doing so by family or community members (38%); relationships of love or obligation to the perpetrators (13%); fear of the perpetrators (7%); cases where the perpetrators themselves were children (8%); a lack understanding of rights and the criminal justice system (17%); and a fear among caregivers that reporting the incidents would be too traumatic for the child survivors (15%).
Among those who did press charges, 87% remembered receiving a case number, 89% had an investigating officer assigned to their case, and 72% reported regular interaction with the investigating officer but only 67% had the same investigating officer throughout the process.
Survivors’ experiences at medical facilities
Approximately 82% of the survivors went, or were taken to, medico-legal facilities. However, only approximately 73% reached the medical facilities within the critical 72-hour window during which the administration of post-exposure prophylactics is likely to be effective.
Those who attended medical facilities gave positive assessments of their experiences and the services delivered; 79% waited for less than 30 minutes to be assisted (54% were assisted immediately); 88% said that health officials adequately explained the processes and procedures (thereby reducing their fear and confusion); 96% described health officials as being kind and helpful; and 97% said they were treated with respect.
Although more than half of the survivors found the procedures painful (57%) and humiliating (58%), 96% still reported that the procedures they underwent were quick and that the health professionals were efficient.
Only 45% of the study participants could confirm that a DNA sample was taken. Only half of these had received the results from their DNA tests at the time the study was conducted in 2021 (51% within a week, 46% waited several months, and 3% waited more than two years).
Survivors’ experiences in court
Although only 64 cases went to court, the experiences shared by these survivors, or their caregivers, suggested that survivors’ experiences in court and with the associated legal service providers was highly problematic.
The survivors spoke of repeated postponements (on average, cases were postponed 5.5 times); not having court processes explained to them; receiving short notice of hearings (which sometimes resulted in an inability to attend); and the unaffordability of the transport required to (repeatedly) attend hearings.
Relationships between prosecutors and survivors require improvement. Less than half had met with prosecutors. Most had either never met the prosecutor or had only seen the prosecutor at a hearing.
Fifty-six of the child survivors included in this study testified in court. According to caregivers, only 25 of them testified in camera (as required by law). The other 31 presumably testified in open court. Furthermore, only 16 children were prepared for their testimony by appropriate professionals; and 15 had to wait in the corridor or an area where they could be exposed to the perpetrator. The latter is especially concerning, since 11 children/ families had been threatened by the perpetrators, and perpetrators had offered bribes to another 12 children/ families to drop cases.
The findings presented in this article suggest that a low number of SGBV cases reach the courts because of a chain of attritional factors that includes families and communities that dissuade or prevent survivors from speaking out or laying charges; not reaching medical facilities, or reaching them too late; poor or extensive police investigations, communication or follow-up (see full study for details); and an alienating (particularly for children) legal system that (despite many commendable improvements) still does not adequately take into the account the effects of trauma or socio-economic deprivation.
