Palmer, Collymore, Archer, Ellison and others as the jury in The Verdict. Photograph: BBC
It's a scenario we will rarely - if ever - see go to trial. Of the handful of cases involving women claiming to have been raped by famous footballers, most do not get beyond the reporting stage. This is one of the reasons The Verdict, with its celebrity jury, is meaningless rubbish that could potentially do a lot of harm.
The Verdict turns rape into entertainment. The show, claims the BBC, is designed to give viewers an insight into how juries reach their verdicts. Last night, the deliberations were peppered with personal experiences and prejudices, as opposed to evidence. I can't imagine many rape victims currently waiting to go to court will think twice about proceeding with their case as a result of this programme.
The BBC has missed an opportunity to fulfil its public service remit. Yes, the myths and stereotypes about rape are exposed, but so far they have not been challenged. Therefore, the programme merely perpetuates mistruths about rape. The twist that nobody was expecting - that the claimant pretended to be a virgin and was exposed as a liar by the defence barrister - is sick beyond belief. It takes us back to the 1970s where, unless a woman could more-or-less prove she was a virgin, she would not even get into court.
Crucial details within the trial are missing. The narrator tells the viewer that the judge is allowing the defence to admit previous sexual history evidence (of the claimant) without telling us why. In a rape trial, this is absolutely crucial. In 2001, the law was changed to restrict the use of such evidence unless there is a compelling reason for including it. Again, this is irresponsible TV.
Unlike real juries - where they are under strict instruction not to discuss the case until they are all together in the jury room - little cliques form and we are shown conversations between, for example, Jeffrey Archer and Jennifer Ellison. Archer, in a particularly salacious manner, asks Ellison what she would do if two men attacked her. She assures him she would knee them in the balls and scream the place down. So, because that is what she believes she would do, the claimant could not possibly have been raped because she simply let them get on with it.
The nasty bitterness of woman-beater and dogger Stan Collymore is never more evident than during deliberations. He rants and raves about footballers being vulnerable to press hounding and female gold diggers, and claims that famous footballers could get any woman they wanted because they all queue up for them when out on the tiles.
Patsy Palmer says she would doubt any woman who says she has been raped. No one challenges this or asks her why. These conversations take place during a boozy dinner, with pretty much anything but the evidence being discussed. In real life, jurors are told to take their deliberations seriously; they are not treated to fine dining and alcohol during such deliberations; and they are made aware that their personal prejudices should be left behind. Clearly this does not always happen, but the BBC could have shown the right way to decide on a case that, if they get wrong, could ruin a life.
This rubbish will not educate anyone. It will instill fear into victims and potential victims, and reassure rapists and would-be sex attackers that they are Alright Jack. The media must now take the lead in informing the public about the realities of rape, rather than using it as entertainment. What is needed is a serious discussion, not a celebrity circus.
