Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

to worry about the accused?

539 replies

WitchWay · 20/01/2014 20:12

DLT for example. How is anything going to be proven? Are people jumping on a bandwagon or am I very wrong to even think that? I don't condone abuse - far from it - but surely they can't all have been sailing along in JS's wake - can they?

OP posts:
SuzanneUK · 21/01/2014 15:39

Well thankfully we have these great public bodies who can look at all the available information and come up with a rough figure for false accusation.

And, having done so, they might then like to make a rough guess, based upon all the available information, with regard to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

prh47bridge · 21/01/2014 15:43

HopALongOn - It would be great if the courts really worked that way. Unfortunately, however much the judge tells them that the prosecution needs to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, some juries will decide on the balance of probabilities. There have been a number of known miscarriages of justice where the prosecution presented an extremely weak case that only just avoided being thrown out by the judge, the defence decided to present no evidence to highlight the weakness of the prosecution case and the jury went ahead and convicted despite the fact that the prosecution case clearly fell a long way short of proof beyond reasonable doubt. If that happens the defendant may face a very long struggle to get the conviction overturned as they can't appeal using any of the evidence that was available to the defence at the time of the original trial.

fcukkedup · 21/01/2014 15:54

Very very few trials go to court based on the say so of a victim the CPS usually require additional evidence.

As I understand it but I can't remember where I read it over 60 percent of convictions are because of a guilty plea.

And I was told by both cps and police that juries do not like convicting young white man with jobs, even in the face of substantial evidence because they don't have the stomach for it.

SeaSickSal · 21/01/2014 16:00

I don't think the current rash of cases where the accused is famous are a good example to base legislation on. The idea of tailoring laws and giving them special treatment is dangerous - look at the Ian Watkins case where he was able to get away with it because he played the 'obsessed fan' card when he was reported.

Anyway, this recent rash of cases of the well known is an abberration. I think it's much more important that in other cases it's publicized so other victims can come forward.

Having said that it's been painful following the Bill Roache trial today. At least one of the accusers is obviously an absolute raving lunatic who is after the money off the Sunday papers. If they don't pull some better witnesses out of the bag I can't see that one sticking.

SuzanneUK · 21/01/2014 16:24

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

ifyourehoppyandyouknowit · 21/01/2014 16:29

Suzanne it almost sound like you are enjoying the spectacle of these trials. It's not public entertainment.

SuzanneUK · 21/01/2014 16:55

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

sashh · 21/01/2014 17:05

So it's rather hard to see why alleged victims of sexual abuse are granted anonymity while alleged perpetrators are not.

Er............. have you ever heard of an anonymous phone call being made to the victim of a robbery taunting the victim and telling them they enjoyed it?

What about of twitter?

Facebook?

Remember the Ian Watkins case? That was what 2 weeks ago? Do you want the babies to go through school with all their friends knowing what happened?

The victim is 'protected' because society in general is vile to rape/abuse victims.

The law does not treat men or women accused of any crime in a different way.

There is also the point that in the cases of child abuse people come forward once things are public. How many times was JS reported to the police? If one of those had gone a stage further literally thousands of people might not have been victims.

Wanting a perpetrator (your word, you didn't say accused, you are talking about someone who is guilty) to anonymity would mean JS's reputation would be untarnished.

SuzanneUK · 21/01/2014 17:15

Thanks for your input, Sashh.

I'm content with anonymity or non-anonymity as long as the alleged victim and the defendant enjoy the same level of anonymity.

You might feel differently and that, of course, is your right.

lookatmybutt · 21/01/2014 17:16

And Suzanne, you are quadrupally full of shit about anonymity for accused.

Around the time Rolf Harris was being investigated there were two others. They have not been made public (other than the widespread rumours on the internet at the time), presumably because either they were found to be bullshit straight up, not arrested or charged or because the CPS did not think there was enough evidence.

I think you woefully underestimate the amount of evidence needed to even bring such cases to court in the first place.

SuzanneUK · 21/01/2014 17:19

The victim is 'protected' because society in general is vile to rape/abuse victims.

And society in general loves men who are accused of rape?

Be fair, please.

SuzanneUK · 21/01/2014 17:22

I think you woefully underestimate the amount of evidence needed to even bring such cases to court in the first place.

And I think you woefully underestimate my estimate of the amount of evidence needed to bring such cases to court.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 21/01/2014 17:27

Well, Suzanne - look at the Ched Evans case. Would you say the vitriol was given to the rapist or the victim?

People do not like to believe that decent people - people they may like - have committed a sexual offence. Look at the support Rennard has, the support DLT and others have - even on this thread.

People victim-blame; sexual offences cause victims to feel shame. Sometimes, such a level of shame that they won't report them and suffer in silence. This is why they're granted anonymity - amongst other reasons - to try and improve the woeful reporting rates.

lookatmybutt · 21/01/2014 17:31

Suz: I think you'll also find that most people couldn't give a toss about your estimate of anything.

DebrisSlide · 21/01/2014 17:39

Neither side get anonymity, given that it is the Crown that is the accuser. It is the main witness who is anonymous to the public.

Just for clarification.

Beachcomber · 21/01/2014 17:41

Was just coming on to post what DebrisSlide has just said.

Neither side get anonymity.

Caitlin17 · 21/01/2014 17:42

Suzanne please don't assume I'm in agreement with you.

Caitlin17 · 21/01/2014 17:51

Hopalong I think you got what I meant re the jury being entitled to take into account no evidence being led by the defence. If the Crown evidence on its own does not prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt then the defence can safely leave it at that.
In Scotland the defence can at the end of Crown evidence assert there is no case to answer

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 21/01/2014 17:52

Suzanne: Leaving aside our opinions and sticking to rock sold fact, it is an undeniable fact that nobody on Earth can possibly know how many false accusations are made.

Again with the false rape allegations Hmm

Keir Starmer, however, probably knows more about this than anyone. He conducted a 17 month cps review on the subject - the conclusions of the review were that between 2-3% of the reported cases were false allegations.

I don't believe Keir Starmer is a rabid man-hating feminist.

SuzanneUK · 21/01/2014 18:02

Suz: I think you'll also find that most people couldn't give a toss about your estimate of anything.

Really? Then why did you make a posting concerned entirely with my estimate of the amount of evidence needed to bring rape cases to court?

prh47bridge · 21/01/2014 18:06

If the Crown evidence on its own does not prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt then the defence can safely leave it at that

No they cannot. There are many miscarriages of justice where the prosecution evidence clearly did not prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, the defence decided to present no evidence to highlight the weakness of the prosecution case but the jury convicted. In theory the defence should be able to present no evidence if the prosecution case is not strong enough to prove guilt. In practise that is a very dangerous move. It is a brave (or foolish) defence lawyer that decides to submit no evidence.

In England also the defence can assert there is no case to answer. The case will only be thrown out if either there is no evidence that the accused has committed a crime or the evidence is tenuous and/or inconsistent. Allowing the case to proceed does not mean the judge thinks the prosecution have provided enough evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

SuzanneUK · 21/01/2014 18:07

I don't believe Keir Starmer is a rabid man-hating feminist.

Neither do I, but then neither do I believe he has psychic powers.

His estimate of 2 - 3% was just that - an estimate, and he may be right, but we can never know.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 21/01/2014 18:11

It was based on the case evidence submitted to the cps, Suzanne.

And I trust his findings more than I trust your idle speculation on the subject.

SuzanneUK · 21/01/2014 18:12

Again with the false rape allegations

Again with the failing to read the thread properly.

It was Beachcomber that brought up false allegations: I was responding to her posting re same.

fcukkedup · 21/01/2014 18:16

and also victims are rarely anonymous within their local communities