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?!

I think I'd have to leave it up to them to make an informed choice. Taking into account all of the factors. I'd not then criticise them for not wanting to report or for reporting but I find it sad that how things currently are doesn't give me the confidence to really advocate for reporting as a preference.

The police are not obliged to investigate anything at all yonic.

It's more that I don't think the police's beliefs/opinions should be the only thing that dictates whether a rape is investigated or a woman is prosecuted. The whole point of the police is that they are not judges, they are investigators and it seems in a lot of actual real cases they are making judgement calls without doing investigations.

Offred if they want a conviction on perverting the cause of justice and the accuser hasn't retracted, then I believe they do need to investigate. What makes you say they don't?

They have to present evidence to support the prosecution. They do not have to investigate the rape accusation.

If you report a crime the police do not have to investigate said crime.

Interesting thread - still gathering thoughts before I post more.

Part of that thought - gathering led me to remember a case where a woman was jailed for a false accusation against one man, but she had actually been raped by another. But that wasn't really investigated (which is why I was thinking of it) . I remember a thread on here and there was some talk of writing to her in prison. I think she had a "J" name and was from Essex? (might be wrong). I have searched high and low but can't find reference. It was at least 3 years ago, I think. Anyone remember?

Sure, Offred, but if they want to prosecute you for making a false accusation they do have to investigate to show the accusation is false.

Innocent, I agree. I think the report that keir Stamer did showing how very low the false accusation rate is was important and I wish the media referred to it at all times.

How can they find the evidence to support the prosecution without investigating the rape, is what I mean ?

By the way, I'm not talking about police dismissing complaints out if hand, I'm sure that happens far more frequently than false accusations and is a much more serious issue that feminists should and do focus on.

How can they find the evidence to support the prosecution without investigating the rape, is what I mean ?

Well yes, that's rather why I feel the fact that they have charged, prosecuted and convicted women without investigating the rape is indicative of poor practice.

Layla ibrahim got 3 years when she was 7 months pregnant. The police switched their focus to suspicion of her (stranger rape accusation) after a matter of days. They had suspects but once the focus fell on her they never bothered continuing the investigation. Instead, after a matter of days they began questioning her at length about her story, lost evidence, used post report mental illness as evidence she was lying despite physicians reporting it was consistent with PTSD after rape, claimed her injuries were self inflicted despite reports that this was unlikely etc. one of the suspects in her case was later convicted of raping someone else. It is clear that there was at least some conflicting evidence in her case and that the CPS managed to get a conviction without the police conducting a proper investigation. I don't know the strength of the prosecution evidence but surely if the main evidence for the prosecution is that they didn't believe her story about why she had scissors in her bag and that there were conflicting reports about whether she may have injured herself then how does that satisfy 'beyond a reasonable doubt'?

It simply isn't unreasonable to be asking questions about that given the past and recent history of problems within the judicial system surrounding rape/sexual abuse.

A criminal prosecution just shouldn't come down to balancing of probabilities. It doesn't in prosecution of rape. If a woman's physicians reported her injuries were not consistent with rape and that they were consistent with self-infliction at a rape trial that would create reasonable doubt.

Yes, that sounds like a miscarriage of justice.

This case involves a man being charged for perverting the course of justice over claims he was abused.

Actor Ben Fellows' Ken Clarke abuse claim 'a fantasy', court hears - www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-33598485

Not read whole thread but here is a case where police WRONGLY prosecuted a 17 year old girl - the resolution was eventually convicted of rape FFS .

The police need proper training on Violence Against Women and rape myths.
I wonder if there is any more detail about how they got this so wrong in this case.

Where they get it wrong it seems to be because of there being a lack of safeguards in the system. There is nothing to prevent an individual officer taking against a complainant 'just because' and then garnering support for this approach from their force and the cps and eventually a judge/jury.