To worry about the Judges attitude in Levelle Verdict.

[daiseehope]

I believe I need to state that this man has been found not guilty of all charges etc. I am an abuse victim who is taking a case to court. AIBU as apparently the Judge stated to the Jury prior to deciding that the sic "manner and appearance of the alleged victim and how she appears to you is vital". I don't think that's right.

Generally accepted research indictates that something like 2 - 4% of all rape allegations are false.

And yet the percentage of reported rapes which end in a guilty verdict is 6%.

Should all the other 94% of people making rape allegations be prosecuted, even though most of them aren't making false allegations, they're making true allegations for which there isn't enough evidence to convict?

That would be one good way to ensure that the reporting of rape goes down, wouldn't it.

Daisee. I believe you too xx. The trouble with all these kind of cases is that they are really hard to overwhelmingly prove. Especially when there is some celeb in the picture and the lawyers have an EXTRA argument that the victim wants celebrity themselves - insinuated but definitely not proved here.

I once sat on a jury for a GBH charge. 10 of the 12 jurors didn't understand the law as summed up by the judge, and felt sorry for the perpetrator as going to prison would ruin his life, and stop him working with disabled children. Can't possibly imagine when he started doing that the thug

This is not a standard rape case though, is it?

With rape of an adult woman there is often an acknowledgement that sex definitely happened, but the question is one of consent, which is much harder to prove, and there are is all sorts of potential for grey areas and misunderstandings, amibiguity, mixed messages and the changing of minds.

This was a young child. No such grey areas can exist. Whether she gave consent or not is not an issue. Hence the very quick verdicts - cleared of all charges. the jury clearly thought nothing of a sexual nature had taken place at all and the girl was either lying or was living in some fantasy world or false memories.

If it is proven that this girl has lie

Or they thought that no one off the telly could possibly have done such a thing.....

Havant presumably in your £500 analogy there would actually be a missing £500? If you accused someone of stealing £500 and could show that the money had been there, and was now no longer, then you have a case. Even better if the person you accuse now has £500. If you accuse someone of stealing £500 and can neither offer proof of the original £500 existing nor that the person you accuse has an extra £500, you have no case.

That is the problem with the vast majority of rape/sexual assault cases. It isn't a question of who did it?, it is a question of was the deed done at all? If there is physical evidence to show sexual contact occurred (which there often isn't due to many people not approaching the police immediately) there might still be no evidence to support a claim that it wasn't consensual, as in no bruises etc - this may be due to fear, shock, alcohol and all manner of other reasons. It usually is one person's word against another's.

On those grounds, whilst it is absolutely awful for someone who has been raped to have his/her abuser found not guilty, based on our system being innocent till proven guilty, it is not surprising that the conviction rates are so low. It isn't a good thing at all. However, I don't think changing the burden of proof is a good thing either.

An interesting thread with some interesting viewpoints.

I must add my own experience that after being abused as a teenager, several years elapsed before I reported the crimes. The police were fantastic, kind and patient with me until I was able to give a full statement.

I decided not to press charges. I could have carried on and the officer in charge said he thought the CPS would prosecute but the issue was lack of evidence. There was no physical evidence as so much time had elapsed and mentally, I had been treated for post-traumatic stress at this point- I'd have crumbled in the witness box. The police put it like this: "it's your word against his"

So essentially he got away with it.

For me, the lesson is this: I must have the conversation with my own daughter that if she is ever victim of sexual crime that she must tell someone immediately. No one ever had that conversation with me and I spent many years thinking I had been in the wrong. That I was guilty.

Until young people feel that they can speak up as soon as something of this nature happens then conviction rates are going to remain low, we need physical evidence to secure convictions.

There's a really great campaign called PANTS from the NSPCC, it helps us to talk to young children about inappropriate behaviour. Here is the link: www.nspcc.org.uk/help-and-advice/for-parents/keeping-your-child-safe/the-underwear-rule/the-underwear-rule_wda97016.html

My brothers and their friends were accused of gang raping a woman.
The police were involved, all men were rounded up and questioned except my brothers. My brothers were on holiday, they weren't even in the country.
The others were soon released without charge because the police found cctv evidence that proved they were innocent. They hadn't even spoke to her. She was apparently having a 'bad day' and fancied a bit of attention.

The woman in question should of been took to court. She could of ruined 7 peoples lies with her vile lies. But she got away with it apart from a slapped hand from the police.

Sorry, just had to add, obviously in this case, it wasn't a question of consent, it was a question of did it happen. She couldn't have consented due to her age.

Thanks to the OPs who have been so supportive . I can't get a false accusation, where's the benefit to anyone?

I must have the conversation with my own daughter that if she is ever victim of sexual crime that she must tell someone immediately.

This.

However, it's often not as straightforward as that. Sexual assault is sometimes a crime of sudden aggression where the attacker hasn't thought through how they're going to get away with it. But (and we seem to be learning more and more about this) it is also sometimes a crime of great cunning and planning. It appears to be part of the modus operandi for pre-meditated abusers to choose children who either don't have that "someone", or where there is strong reason to believe that the child won't be believed.

If the victims are sufficiently vulnerable, it's historically been very difficult to secure convictions even with very strong cases where the victims have told not only family but also professionals. That's getting better in the aftermath of Rochdale and Oxford, but it's still not good.

Hello OP.

My apologies for starting another thread, I looked and couldn't find one.
I have nothing more to add so will ask for its removal.

BeCool so in your view it is impossible to prove your innocence in the courts? If someone is found not guilty, then they are legally innocent of that crime, aren't they? It seems a bit facetious to say, they might still be guilty. Of course they might still be guilty!

Daisee a very high proportion of the people who come to court are guilty and people who work in courtrooms (as I do) hear an awful lot of lies. I think when you tell the truth, it has a certain ring to it. Good luck.

God forbid anyone is ever accused of a sex crime because they're guilty by public judge and jury whatever the court of law decided.

That's why I am beginning to think that the accused should remain anonymous until the verdict has been returned by the jury and should only be named if found guilty.

I was totally shocked by my experience of serving on a jury. The law was clear, the evidence was clear, people's emotions were all over the place. Literally women saying "but he looks like such a nice young lad..." "Prison will ruin his life...." They KNEW he was guilty in the eyes of the law, but didn't want him to suffer the punishment. It scared the bejesus out of me, to be honest.

Mine was a "minor" crime as in kicking young women and men in the head and all that. I really fear that these type of jurors get to decide in cases of rape and murder.

In my particular instance, we had a real "12 angry men" session and the guy went to prison. It should not have been necessary as evidence was clear and Judge's summing up was clear. I never got over how they felt sorry for him.....

I hope the woman receives the medical treatment she obviously needs.

I agree with you Porto, I've done JS too and it's extremely difficult to just focus on the evidence and not get sidetracked by what kind of a person you think the defendant might be, based on how your gut feelings about them.

Which is why I think it's all the more likely that he is innocent. I know the jurors are supposed to only convict when they have no reasonable doubt, but I' not convinced that happens often, and I think that gut feeling plays a bigger part than we like to admit.

People always immediately think the worst when middle aged men are accused of paedophilia. Most people on a jury would want to side with the poor innocent 6 year old little girl (as she was at the time of the alleged abuse) and would feel naturally distrustful of the man in question. The fact that he was found not guilty on every single charge tells me that the evidence given must have been very, very heavily weighted towards his innocence.

Portofino - was he wearing a suit by any chance?

The fact that he was found not guilty on every single charge tells me that the evidence given must have been very, very heavily weighted towards his innocence.

Not always. It must be beyond reasonable doubt. You may 80% think he did it, but cannot be 100% certain, therefore you would have to vote not guilty.

The case I know of consisted of more charges than that and I KNOW he was guilty and had previous form and had done time for a similar charge. This was not allowed to be mentioned, whilst his young victim was questioned about the most personal subjects imaginable, no holds barred.

Hope I never get picked for Jury duty, sounds horrendous. Do people think a closed system would be better then. One where a trained judge etc looks at the evidence and decides the outcome.

intitgrand, but you cannot presume that the accuser is lying. You have to be a special kind of stupid to think that not guilty actually means innocent.

You have to be a special kind of stupid not to be able to read properly.I deliberately said I hope that karma serves her what she deserves.If she was telling the truth karma will reward her for her bravery and if she was lying...

If she was telling the truth karma will reward her for her bravery like all the victims of rape and sexual abuse who don't get a court case, never mind a guilty verdict.

To all the people on this thread and the OP who have told their stories of the abuse they survived, I believe you.