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?!

cail I gave an example of a woman who had been convicted of perverting the course of justice (non sexual)
Her partner was also involved and also got convicted, so its not just women.

If a woman was charged with breaking and entering, they deny it, they are found guilty, they do not get done for perverting the course of justice as well, so if you want people convicted of rape to also be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice, then surely that should apply to all people and all crimes, in which the defendant has plead not guilty and lied?

Lass - this has nothing to do with evidence given on oath, it to do with accusations made to police.
Sorry yes you are right but the same principle applies. Deliberately lying to subvert the legal process is serious

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?

Not as such but as with any crime the courts can and do impose heavier sentences. Although if it was more than just lying but trying to set up false alibis /setting false clues, then yes possibly as would anyone who helped with false alibis etc.

I want a serious technical answer dancing.

Meant to say "Not as such but as with any crime the courts can and do impose heavier sentences for pleading not guilty "

I have just given you the technical answer. It will be taken account of at sentencing.

It was dancing who offered a technical answer Lass, I was responding to that.

Cailin, I don't think you can be found guilty of perjury if you are speaking in your own defence but are subsequently convicted.

You can be if you are freed due to the testimony being believed but later disproved though - see Jeffrey Archer.

Ah I see. But in the cases mentioned in the article, the accusation hadn't gone to court - the woman was accused of wasting police time before anyone was charged. But, say a man was charged and in interview (not under oath) he lied and was later found to be lying. Why would he not be charged with perverting the course of justice?

Cailindana

(i) The crime of lying under oath is perjury. But lying in court is not in itself perjury - it is only an offence if it affects the outcome of a trial. By necessity, if the defendant has been found guilty, then he hasn't perjured himself. He has tried but failed. On the other side of the coin, if he has been found not guilty there would be no serious prospect of showing beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had lied.

(ii) The system deals with whether a convicted defendant has 'fessed up or not by imposing a greater or lesser penalty depending. From a systemic point of view its much more economical and efficient, for the issue of the defendant lying to be dealt with in sentencing in respect of the 'main' offence, than to put everyone through a second trial (even where the outcome is a formality).

Hope that helps :)

Less, yes, typically providing an early guilty plea ought to reduce the defendant's sentence by a third. Taking the case to trial means that the discount won't apply - and Cailindana this is irrespective of whether the defendant is a man or a woman.

If a man made a false allegation, and the allegation was proven to be a malicious lie, then he would be charged. As I mentioned earlier, I know a couple who made false allegations about an individual and both of them were proven to be liars and sentenced to time in prison.

But, say a man was charged and in interview (not under oath) he lied and was later found to be lying. Why would he not be charged with perverting the course of justice?

Because he'd be charged with rape in those circumstances, presumably. If you prosecuted twice everyone who lied to the police, you would basically be looking at almost as twice as many criminal trials. Some people immediately own up to the police, but not many

Ok, say he lied and was not charged as a result, and his lie was later found out but it wasn't enough to charge him with the original crime. Would he then be charged with perverting the course of justice?

Thanks bear, that makes sense about the perjury.

Shouldn't the crime be "attempting to pervert the course of justice"?

In the example linked, which I remember discussing back in December, wasn't the accused also taking out a civil claim of defamation against Eleanor. I think he may even have come on and posted.

Surely perjury is an inchoate offence and then success or otherwise is irrelevant.
Otherwise it becomes illogical.
I.e. you have to have been believed/successful to be guilty but if you are successful or affect the outcome of the trial then you've been believed and not caught.
Whereas if you try to commit perjury and are caught then you haven't been believed so won't have affected the outcome, you're still guilty.
It is in the attempt to have the court believe the lie that is the offence, regardless of whether you are believed.

Cailin, would that lie have resulted in someone getting accused of a crime or being released from suspicion when they otherwise wouldn't have been?

This is the scenario I'm thinking of:

Woman accuses man of rape.
He claims the accusation is false because actually he was in Birmingham that night
Woman is then charged with perverting the course of justice
Evidence emerges that his alibi was false but he can't be charged with rape as there isn't enough other evidence.
Is he then charged with perverting the course of justice, or does that just apply to accusations?

Cailin, do you mean something like him saying "I didn't have sex with her" then there being forensics turned up later and he said "ok, I did have sex with her but it wasn't rape"?

X post

Or am I remembering things completely wrong

^Woman accuses man of rape.
He claims the accusation is false because actually he was in Birmingham that night
Woman is then charged with perverting the course of justice
Evidence emerges that his alibi was false but he can't be charged with rape as there isn't enough other evidence.
Is he then charged with perverting the course of justice, or does that just apply to accusations?^

I'd be interested to know the answer to this. Whatever the position, I'd be surprised if allegations of rape were treated differently from those of other crimes.

That's another good example Yonic.

I suppose the other thing to add is that, if the police sent a report to the CPS every time someone demonstrably bullshat them, they'd probably be writing half a dozen people up every day.

cailindana I get the impression that, in your 14:12 example that you'd be happy for the liar to be locked up for a long stretch on the basis that he's probably a rapist so he deserves everything he gets. There are good reasons why it doesn't work like that.

Bear that's not at all what was meant.

Quite surprised at that from you tbh