Nasty twist in reporting of rape/bringing it to court etc... Dittany etc you may be interested

[LovelyTinOfSpam]

here

So it seems that now if you report a rape you put yourself in a position to be sued.

Given the pitifully low reporting rates, compounded with pitifully low detection/prosecution rates, compounded with pitifully low conviction rates, it's not as if victims of this crime need anything else to contend with.

As far as reported, the accuser has not said she was lying or anything like that, the evidence was good enough to convict in the first place and then the conviction was overturned (fresh evidence or technicality?). So now the woman may have to give the man £300,000.

This doesn't happen with burglary etc does it? So what's different about rape? Is it going to be treated in the same way as libel?

This is very scary whichever way you look at it.

So it seems to be pretty widely accepted on this thread that a large majority of rape accusations are false.

This certainly ties in with the prevalent attitude in society and seems largely based on hearsay and assumption.

Makes me think that all the women on the thread I linked to earlier were correct in not reporting their attacks, and makes some sense that so many of the ones who did report were not believed.

Seems the best thing women can do is keep quiet about it - which fortunately is what they are doing already.

I see that police/judicial attitudes to rape victims haven't much improved. Depressing, but not entirely surprising. Makes me despair of our justice system and the police in particular.

I had a big old rant posted ready to go but then msled and LovelyTinofSpam said it so well.

How utterly, utterly depressing in this day and age

Detective work based on gut feelings. I hoped this may be a joke, but I fear not.

Depressing but so familiar.

The police also don't believe that women have their drinks spiked ( and "therefore have to lie to their husbands as to where they have been"). Oh, that is until of course, they accidentally find that there are some prolific sex offenders totally reliant on spiking drinks to rape women e.g. taxi driver rapist, Manchester bar man rapist etc etc.

LovelyTinOfSpam, I can understand your resentment at people suggesting that some are false, but some just are.

I was sticking up for someone I knew and saying "look she wouldn't lie about a thing like that!" when she admitted she had lied. She'd been caught having sex with someone other than her partner and was desperate for some excuse.

That in no way detracts from the suffering of those genuinely raped and doesn't prove they are all lying. It just means you have to treat each one on its merits (and with respect even if you have doubts)

I had a huge row with a relative who had claimed not to believe her from the start and now felt vindicated. My position was that he did not know before and was still wrong for saying it even if it did turn out to be the case.

Many people admit to having made a false allegation, it is very much more common than people think. Thats a fact. People have all sorts of reasons for doing so and often need help with other issues.

I do think there is an appauling conviction rate.

I think that you should read all of my comments before deciding that "things haven't changed" and that I have a "bad attitude towards victims of rape".

My comments relate to my own experiences, NOT hearsay or assumption. These were in excess of 100 cases that I have dealt with in my career and as I have said, the 50% were either admitted to or were proven to be false.

I explained that it did NOT alter one jot how I treated the women, some were misguided, some were mentally ill. All got my support and sympathy throughout the initial stages of the investigations. But I explained that once an allegation has been proven to be false, the woman should be prosecuted (if not mentally ill of course).

I say this with reservation, because I do not want to put genuine victims off reporting their experiences. But as I explained before, I think this would reduce false allegations and would ultimately encourage more women to come forward and would mean that scarce police resources could be dedicated to them and not to investigating fabricated allegations.

I wanted to add a sense of realism to this debate, but I fear that unless you have experienced what I have experienced, you may concluded that I am a heartless cow and I have no idea what I'm talking about.

PLEASE don't any women be put off reporting a sexual assault because of the inaccurate precis of my comments. I care passionately that rape victims are treated with respect and compassion and I have helped a good number of women through the trauma of rape.

You are right about the CPS as I said in my first post. I am not for one second suggesting that people should be charged because an allegation is "likely to be untrue".

I want to give examples, but I don't want people to be identifiable.

Consider a situation where an allegation is made. All of the witnesses (numerous) disagree with the victim's account. The doctor examining her expresses concern regarding inconsistences and lack of forensic evidence. The scene examination does not tally with her account.

A motive for lying is discovered when it is discovered that her and her boyfriend have seriously assaulted a member of the public who intervened in a physical fight between them. They claimed they mistakenly thought he was an attacker.

It was then disclosed that she had previously made a similar allegation.

I cannot go into more detail, but suffice to say the evidence was much stronger than "in my opinion, not worth proceeding with."

CPS refused to prosecute because it was not in the public interest.

I would also like to say that this was taken very seriously and rightly so. It was only as the investigation progressed that the holes appeared and the allegation became more and more questionable. Those questions were raised because of the evidence, not because of an opinion or because of some hard-nosed copper's inability to care about a rape allegation.

I don't understand what is wrong with teh current arrangement. If you lie to the police or make malicious accusations then you can be prosecuted yourself.

To change things so that the accused can sue the accuser direct is nonsense.

If someone ran over my DD, and they were prosecuted for dangerous driving, but found not guilty and found not to be driving dangerously then they should be able to sue me? I think not.

Why are the rules different for those who are raped/say they have been raped? We already have a situation where a majority of people think women who behave in certain ways are "asking for it" and lambasted - not something you get with other crimes.

The whole thing is really depressing.

And having read this thread I would again say that if these attitudes are prevalent - which they are - it is probably best not to report a rape unless it is a "stranger" style one and you have plenty of bruises to show people.

What I wanted to do was go some way to explain the poor conviction rate and perhaps persuade more women to come forward and not be put off by this.

From what you say I have achieved the exact opposite. I obviously have not expressed myself clearly and for that I am very sorry.

I hope others will read what I have said and come to a different conclusion.

"I don't understand what is wrong with teh current arrangement. If you lie to the police or make malicious accusations then you can be prosecuted yourself."

Because it just doesn't happen that's why.
In the case with my brothers ex, she wasted a crown courts time twice and then got a lift home from the DI she'd just made look a complete idiot, (the judge made a point of thanking the DI for her time and professionalism because what else could the police woman do she had to see the case through because an accusation had been made).
However my brother didn't see his children for 7 months, lost his job as a result of spending 24 hours in custody at the begining and lost time off work for the various hearings.
He walked out of court a free man and luckily there had been no press coverage so he got on with his life, but imagine if it had been a rape case, people said there was no smoke without fire even in his case after he'd been found not guilty. So if he could sue, he would.

So apples would you agree that my imaginary dangerous driver who ran over my DD should also be able to sue?

Or would you be able to sue for some crimes and not others?

There is a process in place which should be tightened up - maybe the criminal compensation system could be extended to recompense those subject to malicious accusations.

The thing here is that the CPS brought the prosecution, not the woman, and yet he wants to sue the woman, not the CPS. Which will fundamentally alter the way things work with regard to criminal matters.

And i believe that it would seriously deter genuine victims from coming forward.

There should be some way of compensating people who've been maliciously accused yes and if you called the police on your dangerous driver not because you thought he was guilty of a crime but to cause damage to that persons reputation then yes you should be sued.