Women jailed due to sexual history from when she was 14 years old

[WhatHappenedToCommonSense]

Can anyone explain to me how a women in her mid-twenties can be convicted because of her sexual history as a 14 year old?

Being sexually active with a boy at 14, even if only for a couple of times, is bad enough, removing your childhood innocence at an early age, but to be questioned and convicted because of it 10 years later beggars belief.

Just been made aware of some disturbing facts about a very public trial, which raises so many questions, but this point worries me the most.

How can it be relevant in any shape or form?
How does this support justice or the encouragement for women to report rape?

How? How? How? It is all very disturbing.

Link or information?
Is this in the UK?
Sounds very strange!

Do you have a link?

Doctordid / donajimena

Yes there is a website but it has a lot of information - not sure what bit to link to!

Try this, it is to one of the pages, look at the second section:
www.jemmabeale.info/ben-stonehill

I don't know about this case so I cannot comment properly but I can't see where the criminal charges relate to the incident when she was 14 other than as a witness but I might be reading it wrong.

As part of that data it is saying she has been charged with lying about being raped by men but not to do with the sex when she was 14 that I can see?

I also don't agree with the suggestions that a 15 year old boy should have been arrested for rape after having what appears to be a relationship with a 14 year old.

Is the suggestion that she didn't actually lie and was actually raped?
I am a bit confused.

I know a 14 year old here that accused an innocent man of rape and entirely ruined his life. I also think that cases where women falsely accuse men make it much harder for women who have been raped.

If you red the 'about the case' page on the site, it provides some clearer information on the case.

A man named Cassim was previously convicted of raping this women and sent to prison. In the trial against him, the women, who is a lesbian, was asked if she had ever previously had consensual sexual activity with a man; to which she replied 'no'.

Years later her brief sexual activity as a 14 year old came to light and was used to discredit her answer from the trial, leading to the perjury charges and the release of Cassim.

There is a lot to read through on the site, but in essence they are saying that her sexual history was used as part of the evidence to discredit and ultimately convict her.

That the prosecution believe the only reason Cassim was convicted was because of her answering 'no' to their sexual history question.

Reading through more of the site, it is quite clear that there was other evidence that actually convicted him.

Something is not right about the case against this women.

She lied on oath and that has discredited her. She's therefore not been jailed for having sex at 14 but for perjury?

What crime was she actually charged with?

This women was convicted of perjury against Cassim because the prosecution state that she lied about having any historical consensual sexual activity with a man.

It is the fact that the brief historical sexual history is from when she was 14 years old, which should have no relevance on her sexual preference as an adult.

In fact, legally, sexual history has no relevance in a rape trial unless it meets some very stringent guidelines, is close to the time of the allegation and is not about consent.

How can it be correct for a woman to be convicted of perjury, because as an adult lesbian in her mid-twenties, she had brief sexual activity when she was 14?

I bet there is a high percentage of women that have had a degree of sexual activity around 14/15 years of age, but would it now be used against them if they were in this situation?

Or is it simply because she is a lesbian?

Either way I just do not see how what we have done as a 14 year old has any bearing on a criminal trial for when we are an adult.

So she wasn't jailed due to her sexual activity as you claim in the title.
She was jailed for perjury, and it seems quite correctly. Sorry!

Either way I just do not see how what we have done as a 14 year old has any bearing on a criminal trial for when we are an adult.

But this isn't about behaviour as a 14 year old as such, it's about committing perjury and lying on the stand about ones behaviour. Doesn't matter that it was when she was 14 or it was of a sexual nature. It is the act of perjury that has condemned her.

It wouldn't matter if it was behaviour from
a week ago - it's the lying under oath about it that's the problem.

She lied, in court, under oath. The other facts don't actually matter. It's illegal and you can be jailed for doing it, not a secret either it's made very clear.

Am I missing something, she lied and has now been done for lying in court

Perjury is serious and I think it is entirely right that cases are investigated and prosecuted.

Whether the effects of the perjury undermined the original conviction is a separate question. But one the perjurer' testimony is removed in its entirety, cases can (and it appears in this case do) look very different.

I think the right message to take from this is having marshalled whatever bravery it takes to report, you need to use that bravery to be entirely honest.

I am only vaguely aware of the case but the OPs links are to a website run by the defendant's parents who are of course rather biased.
If you would like to read a more objective piece of reporting :
www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/24/woman-jailed-10-years-false-rape-claims-jemma-beale

The court certainly seems in no doubt that she committed perjury and that she made numerous false allegations of rape which put supposedly innocent men in prison.
And the case doesn't just hinge on whether she had sex at 14 before these incidents.

Ps just to be clear, she was found guilty for 4 counts of perjury and 4 counts of perverting the course of justice.

The point I am trying to make is that how does what she did at 14, have any bearing with a rape allegation against a man when she is in her mid-twenties?

She has been convicted in part due to her sexual activity at 14, albeit she lied about it by not answering yes to the prosecution question at the time; but if she had answered 'yes' then, would that have swayed a jury about an incident 10 years later?

Would it have stopped them finding the man guilty?

Because she did it twice at 14 with a boy, she must have agreed to intercourse with this man 10 years (or so) later?

I suppose the point that sticks with me is that what happened at 14 should not have had any bearing in an unrelated rape case 10 years later.

The site actually contains details of all of the documents the parents have in support of each of the questions they raise.

They are referring to official documents rather than articles within the press.

If they can prove the points they raise are from within the official documents they have (look at the stuff about Williams), then there are some serious questions that need answering.

The four perjury charges all relate to the same man Cassim, as there were two trials, so there charges are for answering 'no' in court and for accusing Cassim. Then doubled due to there being two trials.

So four charges in relation to one man.

No 15 men or 15 incidents either, but we are digressing from my original point.

It is relevant because there is no time limitation for criminal charges.

And lying under oath is a crime.

Her testimony, now she has been found guilty if perjury, has to be considered unsound. That can be (and in their case has been) sufficient to render the conviction unsound.

It is because she lied under oath, not any of the other issues, that led to this.

Which is why a key message is that the bravery it takes to testify needs to extend to the whole truth. There isn't a half-way house in that (other than protections against unfair and irrelevant lines of questioning, and fair consideration of testifier's age during cross examination)

But the bottom line is, and will continue to be, that telling the truth under oath is a key cornerstone of British justice and breaches of that have consequaences, including conviction of the perjurer and overturning of convictions deemed unsafe because of perjury.

Ok, regardless of that and going back to your "original point", she lied under oath. She was asked a question. She lied. That's perjury. Doesn't matter what it was about (although it speaks volumes here about her untruthfulness in general), but she lied.
It doesn't matter one jot whether she had sex at 14. The point is she claimed she was virgin lesbian and had never had consensual sex with a man and she had.

Seeing as you put this in the feminist section and Speaking as someone who has been the victim of sexual assault, women who lie about it are the lowest of the low and do enormous damage to real victims. That's what you should actually be pissed off about here.

Read the Guardianarticle linked above!

'It doesn't matter one jot whether she had sex at 14. The point is she claimed she was virgin lesbian and had never had consensual sex with a man and she had.'

This

She discredited herself.
She didn't lie presumably about sleeping with the lad at 14 because she felt she wasn't old enough to consent. She lied because it made her case stronger and that lie bit her on the backside.

She lied about two strangers assaulting her and a gang rape. Men who were found innocent had their life's ruined, probably lost their jobs, possibly their families.

As I said before a man near us challenged two teens who were abusive to him and others. They accused him of sexual assault and ruined him, his house was attacked and all kinds.

If that was your grandfather or father or brother would you be so willing to side with her.

I repeat women like this who lie make it horrendous for genuine victims.

The fact that more than a decade later the family are shouting about a 15 year old who slept with a 14 year old as part of a relationship being charge with rape is bonkers.

They should be accepting what she has done.

"women who lie about it are the lowest of the low and do enormous damage to real victims"

Have to agree with this

If the prosecution lawyer in the Cassim trial felt that Beale being asked about her sexual activity as a 14 year old was inappropriate or irrelevant to the trial they could have raised an objection at the time, the judge would then have decided whether or not it was an appropriate question for her to be asked, at which point it was for Beale to answer it honestly...she didn't and now she is serving time for lying under oath. Nothing to do with sex as a 14 year old.