Research knowledge base for GBV questions, methods, and service pathways

The sexual offences prosecution directives say a prosecutor should only enrol a case if there is a prima facie case and evidence linking the suspect to the crime. In practical terms, this means there must be enough initial evidence on paper for the case to properly go before a court.

The RAPSSA study summarises the official duties of investigating officers as taking statements in private, recording contact details, keeping the complainant updated, visiting the crime scene, collecting and preserving forensic evidence, contacting witnesses, tracing suspects, and helping protect the complainant from further victimisation and secondary trauma.

Yes. The official rape-case directives summarised in the RAPSSA report say investigating officers should obtain both preliminary and in-depth statements in private. Privacy matters because survivors are more likely to speak freely and with less secondary trauma when they are not exposed to public scrutiny.

No. The RAPSSA summary of police directives says the in-depth statement should be taken once the complainant has recuperated and is fit to give a good statement. That principle recognises that immediate trauma can affect memory, concentration, and a survivor's ability to cope with intensive questioning.

Yes. The RAPSSA report notes that investigating officers are expected to capture the complainant's and next of kin's contact details and keep the complainant informed about the progress of the investigation. Updates are important because silence from the system can itself become another barrier to staying engaged.

Yes, in many cases. The Health Directives summarised in RAPSSA say that children over 12, and younger children with enough maturity to understand the benefits and risks, can legally consent to HIV testing. That can be important when urgent care cannot wait for another adult to act.

The RAPSSA report says the highest attrition often occurs during the police investigation phase, with many reported cases never reaching trial. This is one reason survivors and support organisations often focus so strongly on investigation quality, suspect tracing, and proper evidence collection.

Yes. RAPSSA warns that rape myths and misogynistic stereotypes can affect police, prosecutors, and judicial officers, shaping judgments about which cases seem believable or worth pursuing. That is one reason some cases that do not fit the stereotype of a 'real rape' may be screened out or handled badly.

The RAPSSA report found serious problems with court transcripts and some poor interpretation in rape cases. These failures matter because they can distort what a complainant, witness, or accused person actually said, making it easier for courts to be misled and harder for appeals or review to work fairly.

RAPSSA found that pressure to finalise cases and maintain conviction targets can discourage the time-consuming work needed for difficult rape prosecutions. In practice, this can create incentives to rush, withdraw, or under-prepare cases that would need more careful investigation or expert support.

No. The RAPSSA report describes attrition as a product of multiple system failures and decision points, including weak investigation, difficulties identifying suspects, poor evidence collection, survivor disengagement, and prosecutorial screening. A case falling out of the system does not by itself prove the complaint was false.