7 thoughts on “Innocent lives forever blighted: These young men were all accused of rape, had their names dragged through the mud – and then cleared.”
The women will not be worth the powder and shot as far as civil proceedings against them are concerned.
Either both parties in these cases should be anonymous, or in the case of an acquittal the accusers should be named and shamed.
The world needs to know who they are because those who will make false allegations once will do so again.
All parties should be anonymous unless and until the accused is convicted, when he should be named. Accusers should not automatically be named in the case of an acquittal unless, using the same burden of proof for conviction, she is deemed to have made a false allegation.
I would say that I favour increasing the number of verdicts available to juries to four: Guilty, Not Proven, Not Guilty and Innocent. The circumstances in which any verdict would be appropriate should be obvious. Where a jury returns a verdict of Innocent the woman must be presumed guilty by default, named and punished at least as severely as her victim would have been, confined to a mental hospital if necessary and for as long is considered necessary, and placed on a register of false accusers for life.
True to form, the useless ‘Conservatives’ promised to put an end to naming a merely accused person William, in some election preamble but dropped it at the first slight hint of opposition, revealing the flacid Cameron and his cowardly party’s unfitness for purpose.
Since the introduction of complainant anonymity in the mid seventies there has been a steady erosion of “due process” in Rape and sexual offences. Unpleasant though it may seem I think the “special” arrangements for such cases should end including anonymity. On can see in the Family courts the results of “secret” proceedings. Justice “being seen to be done” should be what we return to. For instance in many cases of false accusations or acquittals it transpires the complainant has “form” . And I have to be honest that this is often the case for sexual offenders too. Justice might more often be done if it were seen.
Long and comprehensive by tabloid standards, it points the way for future reporting.
Especially importantly, it asks the question why such prosecutions were pursued in the first place.
We know the answer to that, which I need not rehearse again here.
DPP Saunders reply to that is astonishingly facile and inadequate, even by her standards.
I’ve only just read the comments, which I don’t normally do. This one struck me:
‘A lot of the false accusers in these cases will have claimed CICA payments (criminal injury compensation) – they can claim this as soon as they have reported, got a crime number, and given their statement. Doesn’t even have to go to court. The CICA system has paid out something like £250m to false accusers. Easy money.‘
Two measures that are certain to reduce the growing number of false rape accusations are:
1) naming women who are shown to have made one and
2) limiting CICA payments to those whose accusations have resulted in a successful prosecution, and no others, whatever their circumstances.
Yes there are many apparently “trivial” reasons that can fuel accusations. I think the law makers wealth blinds them to the fact that such sums of money can be significant to some people. I noticed in a recent discussion poo pooing of the idea that the access for legal aid in making a DV accusation could be a motivator because “it would be just a couple of thousand”. There are all to many used to “compo” and who seek it wherever they can get it.
Justice for Men & Boys 
The women will not be worth the powder and shot as far as civil proceedings against them are concerned.
Either both parties in these cases should be anonymous, or in the case of an acquittal the accusers should be named and shamed.
The world needs to know who they are because those who will make false allegations once will do so again.
LikeLike
All parties should be anonymous unless and until the accused is convicted, when he should be named. Accusers should not automatically be named in the case of an acquittal unless, using the same burden of proof for conviction, she is deemed to have made a false allegation.
I would say that I favour increasing the number of verdicts available to juries to four: Guilty, Not Proven, Not Guilty and Innocent. The circumstances in which any verdict would be appropriate should be obvious. Where a jury returns a verdict of Innocent the woman must be presumed guilty by default, named and punished at least as severely as her victim would have been, confined to a mental hospital if necessary and for as long is considered necessary, and placed on a register of false accusers for life.
LikeLike
True to form, the useless ‘Conservatives’ promised to put an end to naming a merely accused person William, in some election preamble but dropped it at the first slight hint of opposition, revealing the flacid Cameron and his cowardly party’s unfitness for purpose.
LikeLike
Since the introduction of complainant anonymity in the mid seventies there has been a steady erosion of “due process” in Rape and sexual offences. Unpleasant though it may seem I think the “special” arrangements for such cases should end including anonymity. On can see in the Family courts the results of “secret” proceedings. Justice “being seen to be done” should be what we return to. For instance in many cases of false accusations or acquittals it transpires the complainant has “form” . And I have to be honest that this is often the case for sexual offenders too. Justice might more often be done if it were seen.
LikeLike
Wow!
Is this item a first for the MSM?
Long and comprehensive by tabloid standards, it points the way for future reporting.
Especially importantly, it asks the question why such prosecutions were pursued in the first place.
We know the answer to that, which I need not rehearse again here.
DPP Saunders reply to that is astonishingly facile and inadequate, even by her standards.
Well done that paper, and more please.
LikeLike
I’ve only just read the comments, which I don’t normally do. This one struck me:
‘A lot of the false accusers in these cases will have claimed CICA payments (criminal injury compensation) – they can claim this as soon as they have reported, got a crime number, and given their statement. Doesn’t even have to go to court. The CICA system has paid out something like £250m to false accusers. Easy money.‘
Two measures that are certain to reduce the growing number of false rape accusations are:
1) naming women who are shown to have made one and
2) limiting CICA payments to those whose accusations have resulted in a successful prosecution, and no others, whatever their circumstances.
LikeLike
Yes there are many apparently “trivial” reasons that can fuel accusations. I think the law makers wealth blinds them to the fact that such sums of money can be significant to some people. I noticed in a recent discussion poo pooing of the idea that the access for legal aid in making a DV accusation could be a motivator because “it would be just a couple of thousand”. There are all to many used to “compo” and who seek it wherever they can get it.
LikeLike