Liam Allan

[Doobydoo]

I find this incredibly disturbing and very sad.I have 2 sons.I think this woman,who is able to remain anonymous,has caused immense damage for anyone who has been raped....whether male or female.

[Olympiathequeen]

I hope she is prosecuted.
I can’t imagine what the police were thinking and why they’re didn’t ask more questions.
Surely every bit of evidence should be given to the defence? If the prosecution are the ones making the decision what is relevant how can that be considered fair?

[Doobydoo]

I agree.I heard an interview with him on eadio this eve and other bits surrounding the case.Awful ans,as I said, potentially damaging for other people.

[Doobydoo]

Radio!

[Doobydoo]

Am also surprised there hasn't been much about it on here.

[MarthasHarbour]

I used to work in prosecution (a different authority to the CPS but UK based) and we used to sign of schedules of unused material. It was time consuming and dull but absolutely vital and relevant.

For a prosecution counsel to be openly ripping apart their instructing authority speaks volumes. It is a fuck up of epic proportions.

[prh47bridge]

I hope she is prosecuted

The messages clearly mean the prosecution cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that Allan is guilty. That does not mean they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that she lied. It may be that anyone reading the messages would think it is highly probable that she lied but that is not the same as proving it to the required standard for a conviction.

Even if the messages do give the required level of proof, there is a reasonable chance that the CPS would decide that it is not in the public interest to prosecute on the basis that it might deter genuine rape victims from reporting the offence.

Surely every bit of evidence should be given to the defence

The legal requirement is that the prosecution must disclose any evidence that "might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the prosecution case or assisting the case for accused".

The police often collect a large amount of evidence when investigating a crime, much of which is completely irrelevant. What should happen is that the police should provide the prosecutor with a detailed schedule of all the material and the prosecutor then decides what should be passed to the defence.

Whilst this could be seen as unfair, most of the time this process works well. Most prosecutors don't want to win at any cost and will ensure that the defence has access to all relevant material. It is also possible for the defence to apply to the court for disclosure of any material that has been held back by the prosecution. If that happens the judge will decide whether or not the requested material should be disclosed.

Whilst the system does work well most of the time, it is, unfortunately, a common feature of miscarriages of justice that some important evidence that could have helped the defence goes missing. Our police are not perfect and, despite all the improvements that have been made, there are still officers who will plant evidence to convict someone they believe to be guilty and hide or destroy evidence that damages the prosecution case.

[Redglitter]

Am also surprised there hasn't been much about it on here

There's been several threads over the past few days

[Chocolate254]

Wow, Its totally unfair she can remain anonymous, Shes clearly a liar.
Poor bloke I am glad for him he has finally been cleared.

[Olympiathequeen]

prh47
The fatal flaw in the disclosure system is that it’s the prosecution making the decision what is disclosed, and that the defence can’t ask for evidence to be disclosed which they don’t know exists.
To avoid anything like this commonsense says everything should be disclosed.

Also the prosecution of the woman wouldn’t depend only on the messages in the texts but would depend far more on the statements she made to to police which resulted in the prosecution of the man. If the texts prove sex was consensual (which they did) then her statements can only be lies and were clearly malicious with the intent of convicting an innocent man.

Women like her make the situation of genuine rape victims even more difficult than it already is and she and others like her (luckily very few) should not walk away from a situation which could have resulted in 12 years imprisoment for an innocent man and 2 years of misery for him and his family. That just isn’t justice.

[prh47bridge]

Olympiathequeen

I understand and have some sympathy for what you are saying regarding disclosure. However, there are circumstances where full disclosure would be wrong. For example, it could lead to the defendant getting hold of personal information about people who have given evidence that has proved to be irrelevant to the case, resulting in that information getting into the public domain. That could deter witnesses from coming forward. The idea of the current system is that the defence should not go on a fishing expedition, nor should they be bombarded by the huge amounts of information collected in a major enquiry, but they should receive everything relevant.

On the whole prosecutors do a decent job of disclosing everything relevant. Where the system falls down it is almost invariably due to the police suppressing evidence and not even revealing it to the prosecution (as happened in this case). Requiring full disclosure of all material isn't going to change that. Those police officers who are willing to bend the current rules to secure a conviction will continue to bend the rules.

Also the prosecution of the woman wouldn’t depend only on the messages in the texts but would depend far more on the statements she made to police which resulted in the prosecution of the man

Prosecution would depend on proving that the statements she made to the police were false. The messages are evidence that suggest the statements were false - from the published reports, it seems they are the only evidence. So, for a successful prosecution, the messages need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the statements she made to the police were lies. Neither you nor I have seen these messages. They are clearly enough to throw reasonable doubt on her allegations. That is not the same as saying they prove conclusively that sex was consensual and that she was lying. For a conviction the prosecution needs to be able to convince a jury that, beyond reasonable doubt, these messages show that her allegations to the police were deliberate lies.

I fully agree that those women who invent rape allegations, for whatever reason, make the situation more difficult for genuine rape victims.

[PleaseDontGoadTheToad]

has caused immense damage for anyone who has been raped

How so?

[PleaseDontGoadTheToad]

I fully agree that those women who invent rape allegations, for whatever reason, make the situation more difficult for genuine rape victims.

But why? Why can't people judge each case individually without resorting to what other people have done? People manage to do that with allegations of other crimes so why not rape?

[Doobydoo]

I agree Please.......but I think people have had a hard time being believed.The tide seemed to have turned where people are treated better and are believed but I fear that the believing may now be the case regardless as police etc are going to be given a hard time otherwise. I think,from hearing more,it was fault from police and also cps...perhaps not being thorough.

[Babybauble]

My step brother faces a similar situation at the minute, when information was presentedto the CPS which basically proved lies were told it was ignored. They never followed up with interviewing anybody who was a witness in his defence, they only ever spoke with anyone who may support a prosecution. We had to take the evidence, aswell as written statements to a police station with a solicitor present eventually.

[secular111]

I'm sorry to report that the discussion on this thread, which pretty much echoes the general view through British society, is at odds with that on the Mumsnet Feminist discussion pages, such as;

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3113500-liam-allan-case-reporting

There, with a few exceptions, it appears Allen is guilty and the false-accuser perfectly innocent and a 'victim' in all this.

I guess all points-of-view should be respected, but if like me you have a DS (I have two) you might not be quite so respectful of the feminists on this one.

I am though starting to understand why the TERF insult is made and how it might just have some truth to it.

[PleaseDontGoadTheToad]

but if like me you have a DS (I have two) you might not be quite so respectful of the feminists on this one.

I have a DS. I still respect the feminists views on that thread even if I don't agree with all of them.

Women can be falsely accused of crime too btw.

I am though starting to understand why the TERF insult is made and how it might just have some truth to it.

TERF stands for trans exclusionary radical feminist. It has nothing to do with the topic that's being discussed.

[WashingMatilda]

secular your post is ridiculous.

[Olympiathequeen]

The reason issues like this make it difficult for genuine rape victims is there is, and always has been, a male bias in society. You can see this in the way women’s bodies are objectified, wage inequality etc. Attitudes like ‘she was asking for it’ because she was drunk and wearing a short skirt are still common. ‘Why didn’t you scream?’ ‘Why did you not fight back?’ ‘You went back to his flat’ ‘you’re in a relationship’. And on and on as an excuse not to believe women.

Having a woman make untrue allegations is just another reason to excuse men’s behaviour.

[Totallymyownperson]

I think the media are hypocrites they will be the first to complain when they can't name a celebrity whose been accused of a sex crime. If we had anonymity for rape suspects now the media wouldn't be able to name Weinstein as a suspect being investigated by the UK police. They would complain we should have laws similar to the US. Recently the sun was moaning about a US businessman successfully getting a injunction against them to stop his name being published as a man accused of rape.
If they did give rape suspects anonymity unless convicted than people accused of making false allegations would need the same afforded to them. As the law stands a person charged with making false allegations can be named before being convicted.

[ellybellybowlofjelly]

I'm a genuine rape victim.

My rapist was a friend of several years. We got very drunk together.

I told myself for years that it was consensual.

Never saw him again but was facebook friends with him, exchanged a couple of messages.

It took my years to look properly at what he did to me.

I've reported him to the police.

I expect it'll go nowhere, because we posted on each other's facebook walls a couple of times a few years after the event.

I'm not a liar.

I disclosed the facebook stuff in my videostatement to the police.

He'll never be convicted, now.

I have no idea of the ins and outs of the Liam Allan case, but I spent years telling myself I hadn't been raped.

I had.

[Totallymyownperson]

I think the lesson from all of this is that if you report anything to the police it's best to be completely and brutally honest even if you think it will be less likely their will be a charge or conviction.

[ellybellybowlofjelly]

Agree with you, totally. That's exactly what I did.

[ellybellybowlofjelly]

Thanks for your acknowledgement of my position on this, Totallymyownperson.

It's really rare that people who haven't been through the hell of assault then subsequent reporting even begin to acknowledge how any of this plays out in reality.