Just published. Collins cites a Telegraph article from 2006, pre-dating Operation Yewtree and Savile. An extract:
The system for dealing with accusations of sexual abuse is a disgrace. It has manifest failings that are known to lead to wrong verdicts but which remain uncorrected, and which continue to send innocent men to prison.
Chris Saltrese is a solicitor who has handled many appeals for those accused of sexual crimes. It was not his original area of legal expertise, however. “I started as a commercial lawyer,” he explained to me, “an area of law that is considerably more lucrative than this one. I ended up handling cases of alleged sex crimes only because it became obvious to me that there was an injustice of colossal proportions taking place.” Mr Saltrese believes that there are “certainly scores, and very possibly hundreds” of men who have been convicted of sexual crimes who are rotting in prison with no prospect of release, but who are not guilty and should never have been sentenced. [J4MB: Collins later writes, “With more than 12,000 men in prison for sexual offences, the number of innocent men in prison must be at the very least several hundred. I’m now inclined to believe it is probably in the thousands.” [Our emphasis] We’re confident he’s right, it’s probably in the thousands.]
These men have all been convicted on the uncorroborated allegations of people they knew 10, 20, sometimes even 40 years ago, and whom they have not seen since. It seems incredible that, in English law, such unsupported allegations should be enough to get a man sent to prison for a decade or more. But that is the present situation. Thanks to the steady erosion of the rules of evidence governing sexual offences, culminating in decisions by the Law Lords in 1991 and 1995, a defendant can face multiple allegations at the same trial. None of those allegations need have any corroboration; each, considered on its own merits, may be insufficient to suggest sexual abuse took place, but the effect of the Law Lords’ rulings has been that together, multiple allegations are, in law, enough to prove not just that the abuse happened, but that the defendant was the perpetrator. [J4MB emphasis – Collins later turns to the issue of how the police financially incentivise people to make accusations.]
How could England’s most senior judges come to insist on a rule of evidence so transparently unreliable as that? It is a question to which only they know the answer. Their underlying assumption had to be that allegations of sexual abuse should be accepted as true, even if there is no evidence to support them. The result is that the burden of proof is on the accused to prove he is innocent, not on his accusers to prove his guilt.
Justice for Men & Boys 
This result is one the left, in all it’s manifestations, has been aiming at for a long time – guilt by accusation alone.
As to the question of why ‘England’s most senior judges come to rely on a rule of evidence so transparently unreliable’, I think the answer can only be because there’s something desirable in it for them.
Probably to do with power, with which they are arrogantly obsessed.
LikeLike
When I talk to men about these miscarriages of justice, I invariably find that most men are under the astonishing delusion that innocent men do not fall prey to this type of judicial conspiracy.
When I point out that an innocent man, who knows nothing about the reality of the law, is actually more likely to fall victim to this state-sanctioned destruction of male life than a guilty man, I am met with looks of utter disbelief.
Moreover, men are optimistic by nature and the typical man believes that such a miscarriage of justice, if it were to happen, is more likely to curse the life of some other poor fella.
It seems that the only men who are prepared to acknowledge that these miscarriages of justice exist are those men who have direct experience of false allegation, either themselves as falsely accused or as the plight of a kinsman or a friend who was falsely accused.
No matter how urgently and how earnestly we MRAs draw attention to this matter, the sad truth is that men do not wish to hear what we are saying. Men would rather take the feminist lie at face value than trouble themselves with any application of critical thinking.
LikeLike
Yes Godfrey, and you put your finger on it when you said “the sad truth is that men do not wish to hear …etc.”
Which is another way of saying that people, in general, don’t care about something Until It Affects Them Personally..
LikeLike
This is the old problem of civil rights erosion, and it far predates the malignant infection of feminism in our justice system I am sorry to say, dating back as far as the 1970s “temporary” terrorism legislation. Jurists from the mid-20th century would be horrified by today’s authoritarianism.
LikeLike