Where false allegations of sexual assault/ and or rape are made, then this should be an automatic prison sentence.
2 Likes
I would also possibly detail that it should be depending on how much damage has been caused to the victim who was falsely accused.
Things to consider is:
-If FAV(Falsely accused victim) has their reputation damage.
-If the FAV has been caused distress to the point of a Doctor can approve that damage to the psyche has been done.
-If life prospects have been hindered and damage caused has affected the FAV financially, notable for how long it has or will likely affect the FAVs life.
-If the accuser has gained considerably (financial or by goods acquired from unjust settlements) from the false accusation.
People can feel free to add to this list, but ACCOUNTABILITY needs to be brought back, as I feel a lot of people who would even consider doing this to someone likely doesnât think about consequences, and thinks that they are the center of the universe.
2 Likes
There is complexity to this, but, generally speaking i agree with this.
A burden of proof will need to be achieved to show Malice, however.
Similar to defamation law at least in America: aka âActual maliceâ
3 Likes
It can be a grey area - âhe said, she saidâ, or ambiguous circumstances e.g., where alcohol has been a factor. So there has to be a threshold of proof of intentional harm or reputational damage by way of false accusation before jailing someone for a false accusation.
An alternative to jail is:
- Where an accusation of sexual assault or rape is not upheld, this should be a matter of public record to shame the accuser and to exonerate the accused. The accused should have any relevant police records cleared.
- Compensation for harms and repetitional damage should be paid by the accuser to the accused.
- If the accused is unable to pay the damages, they would be open to bankruptcy proceedings and could be ordered to do community service.
This can be a difficult area, but in general deliberately made false or vexatious accusations should attract a penalty.
1 Like
As identified by other commenters; There is a practical issue in terms of evidencing a false allegation. That said, I think the following would be sufficient to cover it, and be reasonably straight forward to evidence (in rough language):
(a) the allegation was knowingly false and
(b) the allegation was made against a specified individual and
(c) the allegation was made to police, with the intention of the allegation being investigated by police.
I do not believe we need to evidence malice. The allegation being knowingly false and targeted against a specific individual is enough, in my view. I also think the âreasonable personâ test is enough for the âknowingly falseâ salient point.
In terms of punishment (with only a little thought) - I suggest the maximum sentence should be the minimum sentence of the alleged offence.
1 Like
automatic is a probelm there has to be possibility to hold misuse accountable, i point to Tommy robison current sentance judge could only rule on evidence entered as part of trail, judge acted completely correctly. Destroyed or reprts that should have been recoded werent found thus not enter film not part of evidence. all done to show how the judicary wielded by a corrupted state. Very much recommend the film Silenced and signing onto Rumble site to acase his journalism.
Lawfare can be used to persecute an individual and to bankrupt them through the huge legal fees they must find. This seems to be happening to those who challenge the establishment.
Hello Peter, Thank you for raising this very important topic which needs policy reform. Those (mainly women) who make false sexual assault allegations do need a consequence. However, the problem of false allegations is predominantly a public authority/police issue in how they handle the false allegation. It is not just a question of punishment for the offender who makes such life destroying false allegations. It is an issue of accountability for the public authority/police who grossly mishandle and exacerbate the false allegation. That is where a policy for this significant problem needs real and significant legislative change.
In the next week or two I will add some areas for discussions to find policy remedies to address this significant problem. In the meantime, the starting point should be to take stock of how the public authorities/police respond to false allegations (i.e., the believe all women Me Too nonsense) and utterly fail and indeed compound the life-changing significant harm to those falsely accused. The current process which is currently adopted is conceptually summed up (tonge-in-cheek) in a book called 'How to Destroy a Man Now DAMN. It is a book written by a Psychologist under the pen name Angela Confidential. This remarkably brave lady sets out how the authorities significantly contribute to the harm caused to the innocent person who is falsely accused. It is a short book (72 pages) and worth a read as it concisely sets out what happens when someone is falsely accused and how the public authorities/police/judges etc., exacerbate the harm caused. She accurately pin-points the concepts, principles and policy problems which need to be addressed. Those concepts are a good bench mark for the starting point of where to start developing policy to address this significant problem.
My interest in this issue arose in the context of children. False allegations of sexual misconduct have destroyed very young children too. There was a case in 2014 where a school expelled a child of 4-years old for alleged âsexual misconductâ. That is not a one-off. Check out the government statistics on school exclusions to see the extent of children excluded for alleged sexual misconduct. Many very young children a falsely accused and utterly destroyed. And as the law (apparently) currently stands, these innocent young children have no Civil Rights and therefore No Human Rights to Article 6 fairness. That is a factual reality. This is a gross injustice to our children too. We do need a complete reform of the way public authorities, schools, police and the judiciary respond to false allegations. There needs to be real accountability and consequences for those public authorities who compound the harm to those innocent persons falsely accused and real consequences for those who make false allegations.
You can find the book easily. Hereâs a link Google Books
1 Like
I will check this out, thank you. I have personal experience of this topic, having been falsely accused, but was acquitted at trial by a jury in under 3 hours. It was (and is) an ordeal.
You have correctly identified how the system makes it worse. The first and only time the complainant was challenged on her version of events was under cross-examination. The lies and inconsistencies soon became apparent. They were there all along, but the police and CPS were obliged by procedures largely introduced when Kier Starmer was DPP to believe her over any kind of objective analysis.
I still canât talk too much about my case as my accuser is entitled to lifelong anonymity whilst I am splashed all over Google, with headlines that twist the facts. My experience is in part what encouraged me to help my friends set up the PAC and this forum. We have to address the underlying issues that are destroying our justice system.
And thatâs without getting me started on Legal Aid and the changes introduced in the last decade, nor the Local Government (Disqualification) Act 2022, nor the other provisions made over the last few years that could easily be engineered to evict elected representatives via the courts not the ballot box.
It seems to me that from this last post you may have identified another, possibly simpler way to deal with this.
You were accused and openly identified, I assume, from the very start. Your accuser was not. From the moment you were identified a segment of the population will have decided you were guilty.
The trial will not have changed the minds of those who assumed your guilt from the beginning, and they will go to the grave believing that you were guilty.
Your accuser will have moved on and possibly tried again, elsewhere.
If both accuser and accused were granted anonymity until the result of the trial and then only the accused was named if found guilty, but the accuser was named if their case was proven false, would this be a suitable deterrent? And if not, perhaps the accused could sue the accuser in a civil suit.
Hello Patrick, see here a link an example of the civil suit you mention. Fry v Agilah-Hood [2024] EWHC 527 (KB) (08 March 2024)
Go to the end of the judgment and you will see a copy of the email (false allegation) which started this innocent manâs traumatic ordeal.
This man was only able to bring a civil claim because he was able to obtain a copy of the offending allegation. In reality, irrespective of the Data Protection Act, and the manâs right to a copy of this email, generally, public authorities will NOT disclose this disclosable document in a subject access request. Generally, public authorities will withhold, prevent and conceal disclosure (in violation of the DPA s.173) of the documents needed to bring such claims. Generally speaking most falsely accused will not be told the name of their false accusers. Generally speaking the public authorities will hide behind âconfidentialityâ as say they owe a duty of confidentiality to the person who falsely accuses them. Therefore, the practical reality is, that in most cases a falsely accused person cannot bring a civil claim against the accuser because the public authorities protect the accuser with purported âduty of confidentialityâ and/or suppression and non-disclosure of the documents needed to bring such actions. False accusers in effect also have anonymity irrespective of whether they are the purported âvictimâ.
Generally speaking the problem is that there are innumerable wannabe âheroesâ who wannabe hailed as the âsafeguardingâ hero/heroine. And, the public authorities react in hysterical ill-considered responses as if the malicious and spurious mere imaginative suggestion that he âmightâ be a possible person who âmightâ have committed an assault is enough to completely destroy a man (or a young male child). The mere suggestion that someone âmightâ be a sexual assaulter is enough to completely destroy a man (or a young boyâs) life. So do see the email which is appended at the end of the judgment.
In the case of very young children, they are damned not for what they did or didnât do. They are damned for what the adults IMAGINED as their interpretation which they reconstrue and frame as the âsexual misconductâ the child might or might not have done. In my view the teachers who imagined that a 4-year old child was guilty of âsexual misconductâ are insane and so is the High Court for upholding the teacherâs exclusion punishment to punish and harm a 4-year old child off the back of malicious teachers who did not see anything but imagined what they said happened off the back of three 4 year old childrenâs explanation (two girls and the boy whom the teacherâs accused. When you read this particular High Court case, you will not that what was really going on is the boy had special educational needs and the teachers clearly didnât want him at the school. That 4-year old boy will be nearly 18 now. I donât have a link to this case (which infuriates me) as it is not published on Bailii.org.
So from a policy perspective, the point is that the identity of every accuser who starts off an accusation must be disclosed to the person whom they accuse. There cannot be anonymous accusations. If their accusation has merit, then an accuser should not object to their identity being made known to the person whom they accuse. They must OWN and be responsible for their accusation against those they accuse. The accuser cannot have anonymity from the person they accuse. Their accusation must be fully disclosed and their identity disclosed to the accused. The accused must be able to fully respond to the accuser and the full details of their accusation. An accuser (who has been allegedly assaulted) can have public anonymity, but their identity must be disclosed to the person whom they accuse.
I was not aware that the accuserâs details were not disclosed in all cases. Thatâs the first place to start. Then, provide public anonymity for the accused on the same terms as they are offered to the accuser. I wouldnât have a problem if a judge lifts said anonymity for good reasons, or if the accused should themselves wish to renounce it, but it should be there by default.
I have assisted many men who have faced false allegations, the majority within the Family Court System. The other which arises from this is where an allegation is made, rhe accuser is automatically added to the victim statistics. When said allegation is found to be untrue this stat is NOT removed from the victim statistics
1 Like
There is a complete tragic irony that people convicted of such assaults have their anonymity fully protected under Human Rights law and yet, people who are not convicted have their reputations and lives destroyed for unsubstantiated allegations and/or malicious false allegations. See here for example how the police and public authorities will protect a convicted personâs identity. https://www.met.police.uk/rqo/request/ri/request-information/sarahs-law/information/v1/sarahs-law-child-sex-offender-disclosure-scheme/what-happens-after-you-apply/
So on the one hand those convicted are protected whilst on the other hand, those who are falsely accused are publicly defamed, humiliated and destroyed without any effective remedy.
This is a significant issue. Those who are accused (whether falsely or with merit) must be given anonymity at all times up to the point of a conviction.
Note also that if the police do disclose to a person making an enquiry under âSarahâs lawâ then the person to whom the the conviction is disclosed is under law, required to keep that conviction information confidential!.
All persons accused (and not convicted) should have the same rights to confidentiality and anonymity as those who are actually convicted.
As Dickenâs infamously and rightly said, 'the law is an ass".
This whole issue needs reformed policies to protect the rights of an accused (who may be a victim of a false accusation) to at least (at a minimum) the same extent the police will protect those who are actually convicted of offences. See the police policies and procedures on Sarahâs law enquiries.
You are right Peter. I have read many cases where malicious allegations have been made against people which are clearly motivated to gain advantage in the family courts. When these allegations first arise in family courts, the court should be more alert to the possibility that the allegation is false and motivated for litigation advantage and malicious purposes. The court should be especially alert to parent coaching. I have seen one case where there was an excellent Judge who was alert to this and did expose the malicious parent. Sadly, such excellent Judges are the exception and not the general rule.
If it may help you to help others, Judge Robertshaw is the Judge of first instance to whom I refer. The case number for Judge Robertshawâs Judgment is Case No: SE09C01011. His decision was appealed. The appeal judgement can be found here. Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council v Haigh & Ors [2011] EWHC 2412 (Fam) (22 August 2011)
