Dr John Rumbold is a Lecturer in Law at NTU (one of the new NPCC -PACEs) and is scoping a study of sexsomnia with a view to devising training and an assessment tool. The aim of his research is to improve the investigation and prosecution of crimes where sexsomnia is raised as a legal defence. John is interested in liaising with East Midlands forces to explore setting up a scoping study, as the sleepwalking defence can be a significant issue in the work of Operation Sapphire. Creating materials for better understanding in this area would benefit the criminal justice system, particularly for police and prosecutors.
Sleepwalking and the Criminal Justice System
Sleepwalking occurs in up to 5% of adults and usually causes no significant problems for the sleepwalker. However, it may rarely bring the sleepwalker into contact with the criminal justice system. Science shows that it is possible to do some dramatic things during a parasomnia episode. Brian Thomas in 2009 strangled his wife in the belief that he was strangling an intruder who was on top of his wife, when experts were quite convinced that he was telling the truth, and he was acquitted.
The sleepwalking defence, although uncommon, has been increasingly employed in the criminal justice system in the UK over the last few decades. There are a number of reasons for that, but a key reason appears to be better awareness amongst criminal defence solicitors of this possibility (the Brian Thomas case immediately preceded an apparent explosion in these cases). The most common offences where this defence is raised are sexual offences.
Research is needed
At the current time, there are no figures on how often the sleepwalking defence is being deployed and at what stage. We also do not know what effect these claims have on investigation, charging, prosecution and conviction. Conducting research into these issues will enable us to determine how significant an issue it is and in turn, its impact on spending in the area. It will also help us determine what measures are likely to reduce the effect of tenuous claims on rape and sexual offence conviction rates. If the sexsomnia defence does not often affect the course of RASSO allegations, this will prove reassuring for victims.
The interventions that could improve the investigation and prosecution in these circumstances include training for investigators, the development of assessment tools, prompt expert input/guidance for investigators, and training for prosecutors. If the issues are more with successful prosecution, there are several possible solutions: policy changes; practice directions; and legislation. For example, if judges were to routinely instruct juries to consider the insanity defence when sexsomnia was raised, this would put the onus on the defendant to prove sexsomnia on the balance of probabilities. These measures could minimise unfounded claims of sexsomnia with all the associated costs, in both personal and financial terms. Regardless of the frequency of sexsomnia defences, the provision of training, educational materials and support will deter spurious defences. Given the low cost of these measures, such outlay can be justified in terms of improving confidence in the criminal justice system.
If you are interested in liaising with Dr Rumbold you can contact him at:- john.rumbold@ntu.ac.uk
Comments