Prosecutions for rape accusations

[Offred]

Was reading this just now;

www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/01/109-women-prosecuted-false-rape-allegations

Two things jump out. One that there is no rule restricting the police from treating someone making an accusation as a suspect in a different crime, relating to the same circumstances, of perverting the course of justice, which obviously has the implication referred to in the article, that the rape claim will not be properly investigated as it is already being treated as the basis for a different investigation.

The second that how in the hell are police so frequently 'proving' that the woman has made a false accusation? I mean we are always being told that rape prosecutions fail because of a lack of evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a rape took place, how are police finding sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone has not raped someone AND that they went to a police station and deliberately made an unambiguously false complaint knowing and understanding what they were doing?!

Baking what are the other reasons for making false allegations? That is interesting your right.

Just wondering, are male victims of rape ever charged or threaten with being charged, with making false allegations if it's not possible to secure sufficient evidence of the crime to prosecute? I know it's a much smaller cohort, so maybe harder to get figures.

kanye as you say its a much smaller cohort, and I can't give you the answer. All I can say is that the persons gender should not come into it. I know this isn't always the case, but it should not be about gender at all. Anyone, male or female, who makes an allegation should be treated with respect during any investigation due to the allegation. If it comes to light that the person, male or female has lied then the consequences should be the same.

fatty never suggested you were under any illusion. Society is though.

Mide most false allegations are made by women with serious mental health problems and are not aimed at a particular individual or with a named aggressor.

I have a dear friend going through giving evidence against her rapist in court right now. The Police and the defence have treated her appallingly. She's not unusual in that. The police generally treat women reporting rape abysmally, and reports like the one that came out recently which showed that the majority of specialist police officers automatically go from the point of view that women are lying about rape don't help. Most women don't report rape because they know they won't be believed by anyone. And yet, the old, sad and frankly amazing trope that women lie because they're bitches who want to fuck up some poor innocent man's life persists.

The rates of false allegations of rape are lower than false allegations of any other crime, funny how we don't have endless threads about false allegations of burglary with a bunch of people coming on with sad tales of men they know who've had their lives ruined by some bitch who 'falsely' accused them of that crime, isn't it? And yet, every single thread about rape brings out stories of men falsely accused. Like I said, it's almost as if society believes women routinely lie about rape.

I was raped at 14 by a 18 year old stranger while his friend watched, they took evidence from me, took an account of my story numerous times, arrested him and then told me that I would have to tell my account of events to a camera for the courts and they would record it for use at a later date and just before I was meant to do it they told me that not to be supprised if I go through it all and it doesn't lead to a conviction as only 3% of rapes do. I left and never went back, not even to collect my clothes they were holding for evidence.

I was also nearly killed by my ex with my DS slept in the next room. He got away with it. The police said "It was a he said, she said situation" and another said to me "A prosecution would have been easy with a body"

Really sorry to hear that Mummy. I believe you

mummy

I really don't want to go into what happened to me. I have done before, but even typing it is painful. I was not believed. I did not report.
What I am saying is if it is proven a person has lied, they should be prosecuted, because those that lie are making it more difficult for real victims to be believed. And I actually mentioned further upthread about a woman who made a false allegation that was non sexual. So I don't think its just rape that this happens with. But it is a disgusting thing to lie about, and should be dealt with. If its a case of a woman crying our for attention due to MH issues and no names have been mentions, then obviously that requires a different approach, but those that do name people and it isn't true are vile.

When we consider the statistics of rape convictions vs number of perverting the justice convictions the article just seems to be sensationalist. If somebody can be proven to have deliberately lied to try and get somebody convicted of an offence such as rape then they should be punished accordingly. A false allegation of rape is not something that we should take lightly.
I would like to see the evidence that police and the CPS are deliberately trying to find evidence to accuse the woman of making a false accusation and that they are doing so very quickly after the race allegation has been made. If the CPs and police are doing that then it needs to be dealt with. The answer isn't to charge people with wasting police time though if there is sufficient evidence that they have manufactured a story about being raped because the correct charge is attempting to pervert the course of justice. The person ans deliberately made an accusation to get somebody into trouble, with the possibility of imprisonment, being made an outcast and losing their job and I think that this goes well beyond wasting police time.

fatty sorry for you too I am currently writing my story for a case study at work. Hopefully I will be strong enough to share it.

Thank you Baking

Super I agree that if there is evidence that someone has planned and manufactured a story then they should be punished but how do you split those people from the ones who are just to frightened to continue with a prosecution or the ones like in my physical abuse report that there just isn’t enough evidence of it happened to be taken seriously by CPS?

You are a very brave woman mummy
I wish you all the best

I wonder how many false allegations are prosecuted for other crime?

BellaCurve - it might be difficult to find that out, as the offence of perverting the course of justices takes in several types of acts not just false allegations. Such as providing false alibis, concealing physical evidence - even concocting false mitigation.

I knew of a woman who had agreed to dispose of a blood stained shirt worn by a murderer during the act - she was convicted of perverting the course of justice.

The most recent high profile case was that of Chris Huhne and Vicky Price.

What I am saying is if it is proven a person has lied, they should be prosecuted, because those that lie are making it more difficult for real victims to be believed.

This, 100% this

are male victims of rape ever charged or threaten with being charged, with making false allegations if it's not possible to secure sufficient evidence of the crime to prosecute?

There's an example at case study 2 of this document:

www.cps.gov.uk/publications/research/perverting_course_of_justice_march_2013.pdf

To be fair, I think the police are every bit as homophobic as they are misogynistic (as a class, like). They're not going to give anyone a break because they are a gay man as opposed to a woman.

The issue is - if someone gets a "not guilty" verdict does that automatically prove that the accuser is lying? Or is it just that the court was not satisfied that the crime took place without reasonable doubt?

No, to the first question - that would be crazy. You still need proof beyond all reasonable doubt that a person has made false allegations.

I would guess that, in some cases at least, the accused is able to prove that they were somewhere different when the rape took place - and if the rape had no witnesses, but there is CCTV evidence, factual evidence (like a till receipt, airline boarding pass, hotel check in etc) or eye witness testimony to clearly show that the accused was somewhere else at the time, then the accused can prove their innocence.

However, this could simply mean that the victim is mistaken - honestly mistaken - in their identification of their rapist - or that the details they were able to give mistakenly led to one person who then had to prove their innocence.

I have sons, and if someone maliciously and falsely accused them of a sex crime, it could, and probably would ruin their lives - mud sticks, and they might well be sacked, and struggle to get work. In that case I would want the person who victimised them by making that malicious, false accusation to be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice.

Agree cadno & SDT’s you would need to prove that the person making the allegations deliberately tried to frame them for a crime. So instead of just proving the accused didn’t do it, you would need to prove that the accuser KNEW they didn’t do it and tried to get them convicted anyway. Which I can imagine would be very difficult.

I'm not sure it's ever justified to prosecute someone for perverting the course of justice even if they did lie.

The entire legal system is based on the premise that evidence given on oath is the truth. Without that you may as well not bother having criminal or civil law.

If you read the article, one woman was convicted when she accused unknown attackers of assaulting her. Whose lives were wrecked by that one? Maybe she was a mixed up woman making a strange and unfounded accusation, but in that case, surely she needed psychiatric help rather than a conviction and three years in prison while 7 months pregnant?

Lass - this has nothing to do with evidence given on oath, it to do with accusations made to police.

Also, if a man denies raping a woman and is then convicted, is he further prosecuted for perverting the course of justice? If not, why not?

Absolutely the person who lied would have to be proven to be a liar, beyond reasonable doubt. It would have to have an entirely separate investigation, carried out by officers not involved in the original accusation in any way, and be charged and prosecuted accordingly.

What I'm wondering is, why do women get in such trouble for lying, when men clearly lie a whole lot, under oath and otherwise?

Rape and perverting the course of justice both carry the same maximum sentence.

The reason for that is to emphasise the gravity of giving evidence on oath in court. It's fundamental to the legal system both civil and criminal. If people think perjury is no big deal because you just get a small fine then it becomes no big deal.

My experience (and I know that counts for little on here ) is the majority of people giving evidence in court do take it very seriously, possibly because of the possible consequences of being caught out.

Also, if a man denies raping a woman and is then convicted, is he further prosecuted for perverting the course of justice? If not, why not?

Is that rhetorical or do you want a serious technical answer?

The issue is - if someone gets a "not guilty" verdict does that automatically prove that the accuser is lying?

No it simply means the Crown did not prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. It occasionally (rare but not impossible )happens that a victim of crime can bring a successful civil action as the standard of proof is lower (balance of probability rather than beyond all reasonable doubt )