By John Woodhouse

What is the law in England and Wales and Northern Ireland? It is an offence to possess an extreme pornographic image in England and Wales and Northern Ireland under section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. An “extreme pornographic image” is an image which is both pornographic and extreme.2 An image is “pornographic” if it is of “such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.”3 An image is “extreme” if it is “grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character” and depicts “in an explicit and realistic way” any of the following: • an act which threatens a person's life • an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals • an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse • a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive)an act which involves the non-consensual penetration of a person's vagina, anus or mouth by another with the other person's penis, or • an act which involves the non-consensual sexual penetration of a person's vagina or anus by another with a part of the other person's body or anything else The latter two categories of prohibited material were added through section 37 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. This followed criticism from academics and women’s groups that the 2008 act originally failed to make it an offence to possess “rape pornography”.

By CECILIA FARFÁN-MÉNDEZ

Gender mainstreaming in the implementation of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime offers the opportunity to explore some biases and stereotypes with respect to gender roles in organized crime and explore some promising practices in gender mainstreaming in the implementation of the Convention. There are several implications of not mainstreaming gender into legislation, policies and practices to combat organized crime. These implications include jeopardizing the effective implementation of the Organized Crime Convention and implementing ineffective or even counterproductive practices to prevent and combat organized crime. Not mainstreaming gender into policies, legislation and practices can lead to a continuation of differential treatment in society and within criminal justice systems, including secondary victimization and revictimization. This can lead to higher levels of violence and perpetuate the cycle of organized criminal activity. In policies, legislation and practices into which gender has not been mainstreamed, men are seen predominantly as perpetrators and rarely as victims, which can lead to them being denied the assistance and protection they would need in order to be able to collaborate with criminal justice systems to help bring to justice those who lead and direct organized criminal groups. Women are seen predominantly as victims and rarely as perpetrators.

Moreover, such policies, legislation and practices do not recognize that the categories of perpetrator and victim in organized crime are not mutually exclusive and that the roles of perpetrators and victims can be fluid and, at times, overlap. This can lead to impunity or unjust treatment by criminal justice systems. The composition of the workforce of the criminal justice system has an impact on the treatment of individuals within the system, as accused persons, prisoners, witnesses or victims. Criminal justice institutions cannot provide equal and equitable responses if the composition of the workforce is not representative of the broader population, or if discriminatory human resources policies persist. If victims and witnesses do not feel comfortable coming forward and collaborating with the justice system, the quality of investigations, prosecutions and adjudications is compromised. In terms of legislation and policy development, there are fundamental questions to ask to address the gender dimensions in policies to prevent and combat organized crime.

Who makes law and policy (representativeness)? What evidence do they draw on? Are gender-disaggregated data available and used? Whose voices do legislators and policymakers hear in consultations? What is the gender composition of the criminal justice workforce? Can gender bias be identified in pretrial detention and sentencing? In terms of looking at investigation, prosecution and adjudication through a gender-sensitive lens, some key points should be addressed. What is the gender selectivity, or assumptions as to who is a perpetrator and who is a victim, in investigations and prosecutions? Who benefits in reality from the proceeds of organized crime? Is the distinction between perpetrator and victim clear cut?

Are gender-sensitive victim assistance and witness protection provided to victims and witnesses, to encourage and enable them to collaborate with the criminal justice system? Is such protection extended, in appropriate cases, to their relatives and other persons close to them to take into account the caregiver roles? Are victims and witnesses protected from intimidation and retaliation in a gender-sensitive manner? Are vulnerable individuals protected from revictimization and secondary victimization?The present issue paper concludes that gender mainstreaming is not a parallel effort or a “women’s issue” separate from the implementation of the Organized Crime Convention but that it is an integral part of full implementation of the Convention. Significant data challenges still exist: gender statistics, including sexdisaggregated data, need to be collected, disseminated and used to inform policy, legislation and practices in order to improve understanding of gender and organized crime and to prevent and combat organized crime more efficiently