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?!

It's not about thinking no women ever make false accusations. It's about inadequate policing and safeguards to prevent miscarriages of justice.

offred obviously not, because all through the thread everyone has agreed that rape needs to be properly investigated, but on the flip side if someone has lied they need to be punished and yet you still argue

^I don't understand why it is so hard for some people to accept that some women really are callous, vindictive and will purposely try to ruin lives.
That needs punishing. Just because they are a woman does not make them any less nasty than a man.^

For what it's worth, I think this sort of thing represents the minority of false claims. I've no data to back this up but my gut feeling is that underlying most claims of this kind is a serious mental health problem, or a learning difficulty, or a broader bi-directional pattern of abuse. Against such backgrounds the decision as to whether to prosecute is never going to be straightforward. The guidelines that have been linked to variously above discuss this sort of thing.

No, people have implied that false rape claim accusations are not poorly investigated. There's a difference.

Several of the convictions involve stranger rape too where no-one was ever arrested or interviewed (despite having suspects) because the police decided they didn't believe the report and didn't bother investigating. Those cannot be cases of vindictively deciding to accuse someone you hate.

Of course, and those with MH problems need adequate help and support to deal with those problems, as I said right at the beginning of this thread, but some women are just nasty.

Surely you can understand that it is not just to convict women of perverting the course of justice on the basis there is no evidence their allegation is true when the police never investigated the original accusation.

Of course, and those with MH problems need adequate help and support to deal with those problems

agreed, though, for the sake of balance, a MH problem isn't in most circumstances going to get you off a conviction for any other crime. It's an aside but I wonder what it is about false rape claims (if anything) that distinguishes them.

I never said it is. I Said in cases where the rape has been investigated, proven to be a false allegation against a specific person for the accusers own benefit (she doesn't like him, they had a bad break-up etc) that needs punishing.

The fact that they are crimes which relate to someone's mental state in the first place! They are a crime based on lying.

I think because if you make such a dreadful claim when you clearly have other issues its a cry for help, for someone to look after you IYSWIM.
And no they shouldn't get off Scott free, but they need help and they need to understand that their accusation is a very serious one.

I Said in cases where the rape has been investigated, proven to be a false allegation against a specific person for the accusers own benefit (she doesn't like him, they had a bad break-up etc) that needs punishing

But that's not the issue. The issue is does the system function in this way and it doesn't. There is nothing that requires the police to properly investigate a rape claim before switching to accusing the complainant.

"not just to convict women of perverting the course of justice on the basis there is no evidence their allegation is true when the police never investigated the original accusation."

Offred, as I understand it from the report I linked, the accusation of rape needs to be false to a standard of criminal proof for the perversion of justice charge to be brought. The cases of rape accusations considered were around 121 in that year and around 35 were actually brought to trial; in the rest it was either not considered to be in the public interest or it was not possible to show beyond reasonable doubt that no rape had happened.

Cases in that report include a man claiming he was raped by another man; the accused said the sex was consensual; the accuser then stated he was finding it hard to accept that he was gay. In that instance, whilst I am sympathetic, the accuser did knowingly and deliberately seek to have an innocent person accused of a crime.

I usually agree with you but I don't on this - whilst no doubt there are some ridiculous choices made by the CPS (the double reversal case for example) - on the whole, they seem to be taking a balanced approach.

But that's based on an assumption that the case has been properly built in the first place. I would agree with you if there were safeguards protecting (usually) women from prosecution by the same police force to which the report had been made. There are not adequate safeguards against this atm IMO. There is too much potential for all the police's effort to go into gathering evidence against the accuser and no-one else to investigate the rape accusation of the police choose not to. That means that often if it does come to court it will not be surprising if evidence to support the accuser's version has not been explored and/or is missing.

There's loads of speculating here Offred, I'm sorry to say it but there is.

If the case isn't built properly the CPS won't be inclined to take it and if they do, it'll be picked apart.

The fact the accused of rape wasn't investigated will create a massive reasonable doubt.

So that would mean the evidence against the woman would have to be absolutely solid, because otherwise the prosecution would rip the case apart with the doubt from not investigating the man. There would be a massive hole that needs filling in before any prosecution could be done.

There's a case in that report where a woman accused her husband of rape and DV, she then decided to retract her accusation (as is very common in such cases, due to the fear a victim feels). CPS decided to pursue the accusation anyway, at which point she said she'd lied. She was then charged with perverting the course of justice, on the basis that she'd lied, despite the fact that they'd originally believed her enough to pursue the case without her. When she realised she might be jailed she then said she hadn't lied. There was still a desire to charge her but legally it had to be dropped as charging her for retracting her statement that she'd lied would essentially convict her husband of rape without trial.
In that case a woman was faced with a violent husband on one side and a punitive, pressurising justice system on the other. The case reads very much like there was a vindictive pursuit of a scared and confused victim.

I can't remember who said we can't take the word of the expert from the US. I'd rather take the word of a legal expert than someone who knows nothing about it.

Yes, that's what should happen. No, I don't think that's what does always happen based on the cases I have read. I think it's naive to suggest that police forces and the criminal justice system are always fair when it comes to violence against women and/or sex crimes based on the history and current concerns about this very thing.

Women should absolutely not be accused of false accusation just because of retracting. Retractions happen all the time, in lots of cases not just rape, imagine if all were accused just based on that?

I'm actually shocked that happened. There was nothing more at all to that expect the retraction? The husband didn't pursue charges did he?

I think I'd tend to believe someone's testimony to the results of their research over an assumption that sexual violence is always prosecuted fairly and appropriately because we have a generally developed judicial system in the UK.

It's not uncommon for police to pressure women to retract if they haven't got enough evidence to charge because it helps massage police stats on sex crimes/reports. That's one of the things discussed in the article as well as women being prosecuted after retracting and women who don't retract being prosecuted (and convicted) without the rape having been investigated.

And actually even with medical reports stating that injuries were highly unlikely to have been self inflicted, mental breakdown after the report being consistent with PTSD as a result of rape and evidence which is favourable to the woman being lost.

There seems to be potential for a perfect storm involving pressure on police to reduce stats and conflict of interest in having the same body investigate the complaint as well as the prosecution for making a fals accusation. The only real safeguard against this seems to be the police force's attitude towards women/rape. So whilst it is good that a number of cases seems to have been conducted properly there are no real safeguards to ensure that they are.

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?

Depends on his lie. Unlikely if it's just "I didn't do it" The police are in no worse position. They have to find evidence which proves he did. There's no obligation on him to help.

Possibly if he comes up with something which falsely incriminates another person or spins a yarn which wastes police time investigating deliberate red herrings.

I don't think anyone accused of a crime should be charged/prosecuted for perverting the course of justice if they deny it and are later found guilty. That would also be very unjust.

They have to find evidence which proves he did

And that's the crux of it. There is no reason why the police have to investigate the accusation of rape in order to obtain a conviction for a false accusation. People have been charged and even convicted without an investigation into the accusation happening. That should not happen but it actually is which I think is more than enough to throw doubt on the actual practices of courts and police in prosecuting for false accusations.