Liam Allan

[losamsterdamos]

Doesn't this case suggest we should look at how rape allegations are handled? Shouldn't we have anonymity until/unless convicted?

The take home from the Liam Allen debacle is that the police really need to learn how to review and disclose evidence properly. Cock ups of this nature are more likely to have ensured a number of rapists have gotten off Scott free.

In fact strictly from a public interest point of view if Liam Allen had enjoyed anonymity then I believe it is less likely to have been reported on and dominated the news cycle in quite the way it has. Thus we'd be less aware of this major failing.

Oh definitely, OP. Forget the many women and men who found the courage to come forward from knowing that others were assaulted by Rolf Harris/Stuart Hall/Max Clifford/Harvey Weinstein/Donald Trump/Jimmy Saville/Kevin Spacey etc. etc. We need to focus on protecting that very tiny minority of men who have the misfortune to be both falsely accused and to actually have a case brought against them. Given most rapists won't be charged, you'd have to be very unlucky to have not done the rape and be charged.

Lots of threads about this on the board, have a read. The Samuel Armstrong one might interest you. Or the Scotland yard one. Or the rape trials one.

One case isn't going to change the law.

Hope that helps.

We should definitely look at how being raped is handled.

Hundreds are raped every day and very few ever see justice.

This needs to change.

Let's make it clear that the woman in the Allen case has NOT been charged with perverting the course of justice, and neither the police nor the CPS have come forward to state that the allegation was false. This has been a headline spun by the media, and Allen, whose believability is probably secured by virtue of his good looks and his articulation.

The CPS only take cases to court that they believe have a decent chance of a conviction. For that, they must believe that there is proof beyond all reasonable doubt presented to a jury. Liam Allen's case fell apart because of withheld evidence in the form of text messages, NOT because it was proven in any way that the woman in question lied. Had the evidence not been withheld in the first place, the case probably wouldn't have gone to court.

That is the only reason the case fell apart. Nothing to do with a lying woman.

Even, hypothetically, if she did lie, the rate of false allegations is so low it's negligible.

bearing all this in mind, to give anonymity to those accused of rape, there would have to be something that suggests that either -
A. A huge number of people are falsely accused, or
B. The effects of those falsely accused of rape are worse than those falsely accused of other crimes.

There is nothing to suggest either of the above is true. In fact, when the most powerful man in the world is an self confessed sex offender, I think it's safe to say that accusations DON'T ruin lives.

Anonymity would serve no one, except perhaps rapists. It certainly wouldn't serve the 85,000 women and 12,000 men a year who are raped. Rape convictions are woefully low. Let's not push to make them even lower

Doesn't this case suggest we should look at how rape allegations are handled? Shouldn't we have anonymity until/unless convicted?

I believe that one of the reasons why they're not granted anonymity is because there could be other victims who may come forward when they see their attacker in the news.

The take home from the Liam Allen debacle is that the police really need to learn how to review and disclose evidence properly.

Yes. The burden of proof question is difficult. But this, I think, needs addressing too. Just doing the job. Placing an emphasis on (and properly funding).

I was reading an account of Mike Tyson's (boxer) conviction. No witnesses to the assault. He said, she said.

But the police did the leg work. They interviewed limo drivers and hotel staff. They put together a strong case.

It's important to point out that no one is entitled to anonymity in criminal trials - be it burglary, rape or shoplifting. Anonymity is however granted where a child could be identified, for example in a child neglect case the accused remains anonymous (in that the media can't report their name).

For non-sexual crimes (such as domestic violence) the press can name victims, but not for sexual offences.

Before you think about the poor menz, have a think about why that is.

Common law jurisdiction with exception of Rep. of Ireland don't have anonymity for sex abuse suspects. I have never seen an article from countries like Canada or New Zealand calling for anonymity in such cases.
I can understand the arguments for not giving suspects anonymity especially after the Charles howeson case. At least one man came forward after seeing the story in the papers. I very much doubt the likes of daily mail will have an opinion piece calling for no anonymity based on cases like this.

I think that an accusation of rape does stick and ends possibilities for relationships and careers more than being charged with other possible crimes.

It isn't Liam Allen's fault how he looks and talks - I don't think it's reasonable to bring that into it, any more than we'd make comments about a woman who had been accused of sexual assault. He isn't the only young man to be the subject of a story like this.

The police would not necessarily think they had proved his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt in order to go to court. They may have felt there was enough there to make a compelling case for it, which is different. Ultimately, it can be as hard to prove a man's innocence as his guilt in a matter like this and the 'evidence' may simply be testimony, making a decision to take it to court very speculative.

In Liam's case, it was certainly be about one woman's credibility and whether she told the truth. She told police it was rape. She told friends it wasn't against her will. She's lying to someone. And no one with the ability to hello Liam knew about it, because the police wouldn't disclose it or simply didn't know, despite the evidence being right there in their possession. One doesn't need to be a rape apologist to feel the time is right for reflection.

This mishandling of evidence could be a sign that police are helping men get away with rape only if it was a coincidence that they withheld evidence that would have vindicated Liam on this occasion. There is no such evidence that it was a coincidence. More analysis is needed.

We already know that not enough rape cases are successfully prosecuted. We know there is a conflict between the justice system (innocent until proven guilty) and the way police are trained to approach rape ("we believe you when you say that this person has committed a crime and will do our best to prove it for you"). It's a subjective position to take that is at odds with the contradictory position held by the court. If we need to have a special 'guilty until proven innocent' approach for rape, let's debate the ethics of it and decide to do it properly, rather than shoe horning it into the police's role, which is currently meant to be objective.

I think it's perfectly reasonable, in light of these cases and the contradictory position forced upon the police, to critically evaluate the methods being used to drive up rape convictions. If it came to light that the mishandling of evidence is even handed and helped in securing rape convictions, I and every other right thinking person would be delighted. But it is possible to have a problem securing rape convictions and also to have a problem ensuring that successful rape convictions are reached safely and fairly. It seems we may have both problems.

innocent until proven guilty you missed a bit which is beyond all reasonable doubt.

we believe you when you say that this person has committed a crime and will do our best to prove it for you

This is bollocks and absolutely not what the police are trained to do.

We know there is a conflict between the justice system and the way police are trained to approach rape

I don't want to get into the ins and outs of this case because we don't know. But what you just posted there is dangerous misinformation. There is no conflict between the police and the courts.

The police investigate the allegation, and they should that thoroughly and objectively. That's their job. They don't cherry pick or go for one side over another.

The CPS make the charging decision based on the evidence put forward by the police.

The court hear the evidence and decide guilty/nor guilty.

That's the same for any crime and it's rubbish to suggest rape is any different.

Clearly something went wrong with disclosure in this case (as it does in other cases too) but there is nothing to suggest the police in general cherry pick evidence. That's a paranoid conspiracy theory.

Irretating said - I believe that one of the reasons why they're not granted anonymity is because there could be other victims who may come forward when they see their attacker in the news.

Does anyone know what % of those openly accused result in other people coming forward to accuse them?

Non disclosure is a problem in all criminal cases.
mobile.twitter.com/MAM12CP/status/943824974376292352
Unfortunately the media are only using sexual abuse cases as an example of this. That way they get to portray women as liars and get back at those who say their should be a presumption of believing a rape complainant as their has always been with complainants of other crimes unless their is evidence that person is lying.
I mean if their was an unconscious bias in police and prosecutors believing women who say they have been raped why are other types of cases falling apart due to non disclosure.

You will find many people on the judicial system in the papers this week who are happy to say on record that the 'I believe you' approach is negatively affecting the way police are meant to approach their work and when you consider that they are supposed to be impartial, it's not hard to see why so many would hold that view. It's only in the weird hinterland of mumsnet that this is an unlikely suggestion... But I do think more analysis is needed to see if there is a higher rate of non disclosure for rape cases.

There is nothing to suggest the police cherry pick evidence

Except that it may well have happened in several well documented cases this week and has an interesting parallel with a separate aim to drive up rape convictions. More analysis needed but a clear need to ask the question, however unappealing. I do feel sorry for the police. They're trying to get it right and are vilified whatever. But what can they really do or say that's truly objective if they start by saying "I believe you" to the accuser? They can hardly go about their inquiries with a 'she may or may not be telling the truth" attitude-they've already made the decision to believe. And they can hardly say anything to the accused but 'I believe you're lying' before he's opened his mouth. That's the bias and unfortunately it means the default position of the accused from the police perspective is, they're guilty. Which is polar to the starting position of the court. It also means the police aren't there to keep everyone safe, which is a failure of first principles. You can't just start spluttering feminist indignation and pretend that these issues are beyond debate. People exist outside mumsnet and are able to see that simply isn't the case in real life. Open any newspaper. And it doesn't make them sympathetic to rapists or disinterested in seeing justice done. But there's a right way to get there.

It's interesting that you need to believe the media are against your fight for justice. I've been watching how rape has been dealt with in recent years and cannot see the evidence for that view point. There is general indignation over rape sentences and when an accused rapist walks free,, the media are happy to make sure he is likely to encounter mob justice and exile anyway.

But what happened this week was dramatic and, according to top barristers, rare. Cases do not tend to fall apart like this. You not give a flying fuck if there are injustices in the legal system affecting men too but fortunately the rest of the world is not like that.(Hence the dialogue and debate.)Nor the rest of mumsnet, come to that.

Rape is not like many other kinds of cases. It is actually different in many ways. Hard to think of another type of crime where the jury often has so little to go on but a gut feeling about the plausibility of the witness. Hard to think of another crime where even the whisper is enough to make you enduringly unpopular in every personal and professional avenue of life. I've thought in the past that it's fair enough that accused rapists don't get anonymity because other victims coming forward helps to build a picture and because women have suffered so long under horrendous injustice perpetrated by men. But in the past I've also thought that a woman has literally no reason to lie about having been raped. It's clear that I was wrong to think that. I personally would like to know how the statistics for false accusations of rape are compiled and also the same for actual rape to rape convictions ratio. I can't imagine how such evidence could be arrived at and won't buy the figures until I can see they are plausible.

^^ utter tripe.
Of course the police can start from a default of believing the victim and investigate impartially as well. They do that for all crimes. When someone calls in e.g. a car theft they don't spend time deciding whether or not they believe the victim and how to proceed as a result.

You will find many people on the judicial system in the papers this week who are happy to say on record that the 'I believe you' approach is negatively affecting the way police are meant to approach their work maybe you could link some of these? I tend to be slightly sceptical of defence barristers saying this. They make a living getting people off these charges and advertise their services as such.
Rape is not like many other kinds of cases. It is actually different in many ways. Hard to think of another type of crime where the jury often has so little to go on but a gut feeling about the plausibility of the witness. Hard to think of another crime where even the whisper is enough to make you enduringly unpopular in every personal and professional avenue of life.

I love the way this whole paragraph completely and utterly fails to take into account any of the impact of being raped on the 25% of women this happens to! It's a good insight into your priorities and views of women.

Personally I think a bit of unpopularity for the very few men wrongly accused pales into insignificance against the psychological and physical impact on the 93% of women who report rape and don't get justice. Or am the women who never report it because there is no point.

I'm going to c&p a response I wrote on another thread to see what you think of my suggestions for improving rape convictions.

Here's some ideas

The man would have to explain what he did to actively get consent, rather than the victim defend why she didnt consent.
We could get rid of the "reasonable belief of consent" clause as it actively works against the lack of capacity clause (e.g through drink or drugs).
We could introduce a crime like "reckless penetration" or "penetrating without due care and attention" for cases where it seems the man did very little to get consent but rape can't be proved.
The court case could be heard by a panel of expert judges rather than a jury. The trial could be inquisitorial rather than adversarial (so more like an inquest or enquiry). This would also allow a wider range of verdicts.
We could use more sexual offence prevention orders where offenders are assessed as posing a risk to women, even if found not guilty.
We could change bail guidelines so men aren't hanging round for ages waiting for a charging decision and so the impact on innocent men is minimised.

She told police it was rape. She told friends it wasn't against her will. She's lying to someone.

But was she speaking about the same events?

Just because she likes rough sex and rape fantasy, doesn't mean that a rape didn't happen to her.

The police investigation seems to have been very poor.

conniver please do not come on to a feminist board and try to claim that police now have a bias in favour of believing women in cases of rape.

Far too many of us have direct experience of exactly the opposite bias, both from the police and from society at large.

Regarding the collection of evidence, do you have actual proof that poor collection of evidence is caused by a positive bias in the police? I can think of other high profile cases where evidence collection is biased leaving results in favour of men. More likely its caused by general police incompetence, helped along by cuts.

'where evidence collection has been noticeably poor, leading to results in favour of men' might make more sense.

The fact is that in rape an other sexual offences, results are usually in favour of men. So much so that few women bother to report.