More CPS incompetence: False Accusation

[Merseysider]

An actress who cannot be identified for legal reasons falsely claimed a commuter sexually assaulted her. The scary thing is that this could have been anyone whatsoever, including us on the forum, that got dragged through the media and had their reputation trashed. Not to mention the (potentially permanent) psychological effects as well, including stress, problems at work, potential financial ruin.

The defence lawyer for a man who was falsely accused of sexually assaulting a well-known actress has claimed CCTV footage was slowed down by prosecutors. Mark Pearson, a 51-year-old artist, was accused of sexually assaulting a well-known actress in her 60s when their paths crossed at London's Waterloo station.

The jury cleared him of 'sexually penetrating' the woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons. The jury unanimously dismissed the prosecution claim that the crime could have occurred in just a split second in front of dozens of commuters.

It has now been alleged that the CPS slowed down the CCTV footage of the station in an attempt to bolster their case. Mark Bagshaw, Mr Pearson's defence lawyer, told The Telegraph: 'The CCTV was served on us in a way in which had been altered. 'The few seconds when my client walked past the alleged victim had been slowed down so it looked like he had more time to commit the alleged actions than he in reality did have.' The CPS's alleged actions meant Mr Pearson's lawyers had to hire a forensic expert to correct the video.

Over the past year, the CPS has been repeatedly stung by criticism of its decision-making in a series of high-profile sex cases.

Link

An award-winning actress appearing in the upcoming season of *** falsely accused Mark Pearson of rape after he walked past her. She claimed that Pearson penetrated her [...] for several seconds in the middle of Waterloo Station in London.

Despite video evidence showing the male artist had a newspaper in one hand and was holding the strap of his backpack in the other, he was tracked down using his electronic public transportation card and charged. Furthermore, Pearson was in range of her for no more than about half a second. In January 2015, police appealed for help in finding the then 66-year-old’s “attacker”. At this stage, Mr. Pearson’s image began to circulate in the public domain.

The unnamed actor, to try and bolster her fraudulent account, said she screamed and no one helped her. CCTV footage conclusively disproved this. To boot, Pearson did not break stride, discrediting her other claim that he smashed into her shoulder. Most shockingly of all, the accuser could not even point him out in an “identity parade.” That did not stop the Crown Prosecution Service from prosecuting Pearson until its representatives were rebuked by the judge and a jury quickly exonerated him.

9 February 2016
There were no witnesses and was no forensic evidence. It took the jury 90 minutes to acquit him.

The Crown Prosecution Service said: "There was sufficient evidence for this case to proceed to court and progress to trial. We respect the decision of the jury."

Link

My bold. Whilst publishing a person's photograph may be a necessary step to find real criminals there does need to be repercussions for false accusations.

I find it worrying that the accused has nowhere near the level of protection that the accuser has. Nobody party to the prosecution should be named until after the trial in my opinion.

I hope legal proceedings are brought against her as an innocent man being put through this is disgusting and deprives real victims from resources. I also hope the TV series drop her given the recent events.

Despite it being blindingly obvious that no sexual assault could have taken place, the CPS still decided to prosecute. Why on earth was this allowed to get so far?

CPS agenda? Targets? Incompetence or malice?

Also, a theoretical question.

If you’ve been the victim of a sexual assault or rape, it’s against the law for anyone to publish your name, photo or anything else that could identify you.

I wouldn't want to risk getting the forum in trouble, so I wouldn't name the actress publicly under any circumstances anyway. But what legal consequences would there theoretically be against an individual resident in another country, either with or without a UK extradition treaty, who named the false accusor and later returned to the UK? What about foreign press who name and shame?

And does the law mentioned in the above extract apply when someone definitely hasn't been the victim of a sexual assault or rape, but has previously claimed that they were? If so, it's rather worrying that one person can do this to another with impunity.

 

[bb21]

I remember seeing this not long ago, and thought to myself "WTF?" at the time.

 

[455driver]

I do love the way she is 'protected' but its okay to splash his name and picture all over the front pages despite the fact he wasnt actually guilty (at the time) and it was then found that there was no case to answer, bloomin equal rights my right buttock!

Whats that about innocent until found guilty, this bloke was found guilty by media before even appearing in Court and that has to stop.

As it has now been proved that this was an unfounded, malicious accusation maybe her name and picture should be circulated so that every man out there can make sure they keep away from this poisonous reptile!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I wouldn't want to risk getting the forum in trouble, so I wouldn't name the actress publicly under any circumstances anyway. But what legal consequences would there theoretically be against an individual resident in another country, either with or without a UK extradition treaty, who named the false accusor and later returned to the UK? What about foreign press who name and shame?

And does the law mentioned in the above extract apply when someone definitely hasn't been the victim of a sexual assault or rape, but has previously claimed that they were? If so, it's rather worrying that one person can do this to another with impunity.

As she hasnt been the victim then I cant see how that would apply, but it isnt worth the risk, its just another example of the law protecting the (real) guilty party.

 

[Merseysider]

I remember seeing this not long ago, and thought to myself "WTF?" at the time.

I felt so sorry for this man after reading the article. The fact that he's innocent is being picked up by more and more news outlets now but I doubt that will undo 100% of the damage done.

...
Whats that about innocent until found guilty, this bloke was found guilty by media before even appearing in Court and that has to stop.
...

Absolutely agree, of course. Without restricting 'press freedom' something has to be done. That's not even including the hundreds (thousands?) of online comments which will have appeared on those news articles passing their own judgement. Ironically it is in the comments section of a media outlet that her name first appeared.

As it has now been proved that this was an unfounded, malicious accusation maybe her name and picture should be circulated so that every man out there can make sure they keep away from this poisonous reptile!

The name and photo is out there, if you do some digging.

As she hasnt been the victim then I cant see how that would apply, but it isnt worth the risk, its just another example of the law protecting the (real) guilty party.

And such a shame too; being a 'first world' country and not having a legal system to match. The public won't have faith in the justice system if farcical episodes like this keep happening.

 

[Hornet]

""Well Known Actress". I've never heard of her! Plenty of forums sticking two fingers up to the UK justice system by outing her, (and rightly so IMO).

 

[TheEdge]

""Well Known Actress". I've never heard of her! Plenty of forums sticking two fingers up to the UK justice system by outing her, (and rightly so IMO).

Me neither, she doesn't even have a picture on IMDB!

I've long felt the reporting rules and anonymity around sexual offences is utterly wrong and needs to be altered. I don't want to protect actual offenders but given the harm a false allocation causes both parties in sexual offence trials should be anonymous until after the trial. And a false accusation, like this one, the accuser should be named and suffer the same hell they have dragged someone else through.

 

[Drogba11CFC]

If it was up to me, the prosecutors would be disbarred and, along with the actress, indicted on a charge of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

 

[DarloRich]

I find it worrying that the accused has nowhere near the level of protection that the accuser has. Nobody party to the prosecution should be named until after the trial in my opinion.

I agree to a point but then how do you persuade others to come forward and report that they are victims.

Police urge victims of an arrested 57 year old man to come forward doesn't really help does it?

I hope legal proceedings are brought against her as an innocent man being put through this is disgusting and deprives real victims from resources. I also hope the TV series drop her given the recent events.

So anyone who alleges an offence and fails to get a conviction should be prosecuted?

Despite it being blindingly obvious that no sexual assault could have taken place, the CPS still decided to prosecute. Why on earth was this allowed to get so far?

CPS agenda? Targets? Incompetence or malice?

There must be more to this story than presented in the press. I can not believe the CPS prosecuted on such evidence.

I remember seeing this not long ago, and thought to myself "WTF?" at the time.

indeed!

If it was up to me, the prosecutors would be disbarred and, along with the actress, indicted on a charge of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

What a silly statement typical of this kind of argument. Are you in possession of all of the evidence in the case? It is barely worthy of comment. What alleged offences is it OK to prosecute? :roll:

I've long felt the reporting rules and anonymity around sexual offences is utterly wrong and needs to be altered. I don't want to protect actual offenders but given the harm a false allocation causes both parties in sexual offence trials should be anonymous until after the trial. And a false accusation, like this one, the accuser should be named and suffer the same hell they have dragged someone else through.

I should point out that often there may not be a false or fabricated accusation - there may simply be insufficient evidence to convict which is not quite the same thing as making up a story.

I would also not necessarily agree that the complainant should be named. What of putting off people who are real victims of such horrible crimes? How could people be asked to come forward and report crimes ( and these type of crimes are rarely straight forward) knowing that if they don't achieve a conviction they will be treated as a pariah and open to the kind of abuse seen above? Cases have been won on extra witnesses and victims coming forward because the alleged perpetrator has been named and been seen to be arrested.

What of someone with mental health issues? Should they be treated to a 21st century version of the stocks?

I completely agree the scales should be level but it is a very difficult area to strike a balance!

 

[Groningen]

That actress played her role very well. Same as that sexring around Edward Heath and Leon Brittan. Something that also did not excist.

 

[Geezertronic]

So anyone who alleges an offence and fails to get a conviction should be prosecuted?

Anyone who falsely alleges an offence should be prosecuted

 

[DarloRich]

Anyone who falsely alleges an offence should be prosecuted

what is the definition of falsely? If the alleged offender is found not guilty did you make up the allegation?

 

[Tetchytyke]

People who make false allegations are prosecuted, and prosecuted on a fairly regular basis. We don't, of course, know whether this person is currently being investigated for making a false allegation.

I'm no fan of the CPS; they are generally a law unto themselves, and the courts are not minded to penalise them with Wasted Costs Orders in the same way that a defence solicitor would be penalised. Their decision making is often poor. We saw that last year with a sexual abuse case. The police thought the woman was telling the truth but her alleged attacker- a very wealthy man- brought a private prosecution, which the CPS enthusiastically took over despite no evidence. The woman killed herself because of what the CPS put her through.

But we don't know what else there is that influenced their decision. We don't know what the police sent to them. I've seen the police, er, choose their evidence carefully, plenty of times; it is interesting to see the same typo in three or four "independently written" police reports, I can say.

What we need to be careful of, though, is assuming that anyone who makes an allegation which is disproved in court is a "fraudulent liar". Acquittal doesn't mean it didn't happen, it simply means it was not proven to have happened. There are plenty of people acquitted who blatantly did it, but there was insufficient proof, and not just in sex abuse cases. I've worked with a few.

I also don't agree with the idea that defendants should be anonymous until after conviction. There are many plus points to the argument, sure, but it hampers the ability to investigate a crime. John Worboys, Antoni Imiela and Levi Bellfield were all convicted, in part, because their arrest encouraged other victims to come forward. With anonymity, those victims may well never have come forward.

 

[Geezertronic]

what is the definition of falsely? If the alleged offender is found not guilty did you make up the allegation?

You're being pedantic now and I think you know exactly what I mean.

 

[TheEdge]

Police urge victims of an arrested 57 year old man to come forward doesn't really help does it?

If there is a serious possibility of multiple offenses and the prosecution/CPS can prove it is likely then it would be reasonable for a name to be released for this reason. But in these her word against his cases there is just no need.

I should point out that often there may not be a false or fabricated accusation - there may simply be insufficient evidence to convict which is not quite the same thing as making up a story.

What about this particular incident then? CCTV shows the two parties passing for less than a second, his hands remaining on his bag and holding his paper. She claimed he managed to penetrate her. If that's not fabricated what is?

I would also not necessarily agree that the complainant should be named. What of putting off people who are real victims of such horrible crimes? How could people be asked to come forward and report crimes ( and these type of crimes are rarely straight forward) knowing that if they don't achieve a conviction they will be treated as a pariah and open to the kind of abuse seen above? Cases have been won on extra witnesses and victims coming forward because the alleged perpetrator has been named and been seen to be arrested.

I'm not saying all failed prosecutions should be named but in cases of false accusation they should. The cases where the complainant has either under questioning admitted it was made up or when evidence proves the people were miles away at the time, those sort of cases. Those complainants are not complainants but criminals and should be pursued by the full force of the law, every time!

I completely agree the scales should be level but it is a very difficult area to strike a balance!

Is it though? All I wan't to see is anonymity for both, accuser and accused. That way the accused doesn't end up ruined if it was a fabricated case and in real cases the accuser is still protected.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If there is a serious possibility of multiple offenses and the prosecution/CPS can prove it is likely then it would be reasonable for a name to be released for this reason. But in these her word against his cases there is just no need.

People who sexually assault people don't tend to just sexually assault one person, as a one-off. They tend to be repeat offenders. Publicising the incident- as was alleged- was entirely reasonable.

John Worboys' case started off as a "her word against his" case.

I'm not saying all failed prosecutions should be named but in cases of false accusation they should. The cases where the complainant has either under questioning admitted it was made up or when evidence proves the people were miles away at the time, those sort of cases. Those complainants are not complainants but criminals and should be pursued by the full force of the law, every time!

*sigh*

They are.

 

[Busaholic]

I can only say 'thank goodness for the system of trial by jury' which is always under threat, no more so than when Christopher Grayling was Minister for Injustice. Of course, it doesn't help when a news agency, non-UK based though it may be, mistakenly says the man was accused of rape and quotes the actress (obviously a full-time job for her) as having been 'penetrated'.
On a lighter note, though perhaps not for some, as a young man I was goosed by what turned out to be a good-looking young woman on the platform at Victoria Station, and I don't recollect reporting her to anybody. I was too taken aback (pun intended) to respond by saying anything, and she uttered not a word, just a beatific smile. Needless to say, it never happened again, even though I presented myself on that self-same platform at the same time for years afterwards!

 

[Tetchytyke]

as a young man I was goosed by what turned out to be a good-looking young woman on the platform at Victoria Station, and I don't recollect reporting her to anybody.

It's only indecent assault if you don't consent to it

 

[Merseysider]

Of course, it doesn't help when a news agency, non-UK based though it may be, mistakenly says the man was accused of rape and quotes the actress (obviously a full-time job for her) as having been "penetrated".

That would appear to be consistent at least with US terminology and reporting. The term 'rape' has been redefined recently to now mean:

The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.

(link)

 

[WelshBluebird]

I am not really that aware of police / CPS ways of working, but surely I can't be the only person who after seeing this story was left thinking of the hell it happened? Surely there has to be actual evidence gathered by the police before a case is even passed to the CPS?

 

[radamfi]

Anyone who's been reported in the press as a potential sex offender has basically lost his entire life regardless of whether he is found guilty or not. That is too severe a punishment if he's found not guilty.

 

[northwichcat]

I do love the way she is 'protected' but its okay to splash his name and picture all over the front pages despite the fact he wasnt actually guilty (at the time) and it was then found that there was no case to answer, bloomin equal rights my right buttock!

Whats that about innocent until found guilty, this bloke was found guilty by media before even appearing in Court and that has to stop.

Indeed.

As it has now been proved that this was an unfounded, malicious accusation maybe her name and picture should be circulated so that every man out there can make sure they keep away from this poisonous reptile!

I don't see what's wrong with that in cases where it's proven the person made up a claim. The laws which seem to be protecting her from that are intended to prevent victims being publicly branded as liars if there's insufficient evidence, not to protect people who have deliberately made false accusations.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The laws which seem to be protecting her from that are intended to prevent victims being publicly branded as liars if there's insufficient evidence, not to protect people who have deliberately made false accusations.

Unless she is convicted of perverting the course of justice, it is not proven that she has deliberately made a false allegation.

People who are convicted of making false rape allegations are named, just like any other offender.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Anyone who's been reported in the press as a potential sex offender has basically lost his entire life regardless of whether he is found guilty or not. That is too severe a punishment if he's found not guilty.

I don't think people look negatively on Neil Hamilton (well, not that he's a sex offender anyway) or Craig Charles, despite their experiences.

 

[radamfi]

Is it right that anyone gets accused of a crime that they didn't commit? Putting someone though life with that possibility isn't ethical in my view.

Has anyone considered filming themselves 24 hours a day to ensure that they always have evidence that they didn't commit a crime? We already do that with dashcams, for example.

 

[northwichcat]

I don't think people look negatively on Neil Hamilton (well, not that he's a sex offender anyway) or Craig Charles, despite their experiences.

Celebrities are generally liked by at least some members of the public, who are keen to treat them as innocent until proven guilty but if you're Mr X and an underage teenage girl has made up a story that you've had sexual activity with her I don't think the parents in your local area will treat you as innocent until proven guilty!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Has anyone considered filming themselves 24 hours a day to ensure that they always have evidence that they didn't commit a crime? We already do that with dashcams, for example.

In the North West there was the well publicised example of where a crash for cash scam was caught by First Bus due to them fitting cameras to their buses. At that date I doubt anyone had such devices in cars or on their bikes/motorbikes.

 

[radamfi]

I don't think people look negatively on Neil Hamilton (well, not that he's a sex offender anyway) or Craig Charles, despite their experiences.

Has anyone been negatively impacted by such an accusation?

 

[455driver]

I am not really that aware of police / CPS ways of working, but surely I can't be the only person who after seeing this story was left thinking of the hell it happened? Surely there has to be actual evidence gathered by the police before a case is even passed to the CPS?

what, like the guard on MerseyRail who is awaiting a day at County Court because the Clown Prosecution Service has deemed a guard doing his job correctly* needs prosecuting!

* According to all 'evidence' in the public domain.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't think people look negatively on Neil Hamilton (well, not that he's a sex offender anyway) or Craig Charles, despite their experiences.

Didnt do his career much good did it!
Or Ken Barlow and Kevin Webster off Coronation Street who were both dropped while it was investigated.

No it didnt do them any harm at all, especially Craig Charles who struggled to recover his career from the way he suffered trial by media after that ridiculous accusation!

Any cases where it is proved to be a false accusation the victim should have recourse to the accuser who should also be named.

 

[Trog]

The business of the slowed down video is something I would want looking into, the actress could be honest but totally deluded. But if the video slow down is true presumably somebody official has deliberately tampered with the evidence, and that must be a crime.

 

[Merseysider]

The business of the slowed down video is something I would want looking into, the actress could be honest but totally deluded. But if the video slow down is true presumably somebody official has deliberately tampered with the evidence, and that must be a crime.

It really wouldn't come as much of a surprise. Remember when Jean Charles de Menezes was murdered by the police, and photos were altered in court to make him look more like the terrorist?

 

[miami]

he was tracked down using his electronic public transportation card

Yup, oyster records used to persecute the innocent. Would he have been tracked down had he had a day travelcard?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3121652.stm

Last Updated: Thursday, 25 September, 2003

Under the new system, Transport for London will be able to track a commuter's movements and it plans to retain information on journeys made for "a number of years"

Each card has a unique ID number linked to the registered owner's name, which is recorded together with the location and time of the exchange every time the card is used.

The data, retained for business purposes, could be released to law enforcement agencies under certain conditions.

Anyone hoping to use a monthly or annual season ticket will have to register their details with Transport for London, although anonymous cards will be available to those willing to pay per journey.

The civil rights group Liberty told BBC News Online that commuters should be able to opt out of the system if they had privacy concerns.
...

But of course it's only paranoid people who don't like the idea of the CPS being able to have your every movement accessible to them.

cannot be identified for legal reasons falsely

What legal reasons? I'd assumed it would be an under-18, but apparently not.

The Government claim "If you’ve been the victim of a sexual assault or rape, it’s against the law for anyone to publish your name, photo or anything else that could identify you.
", however this person was not a victim.

I see that she was named on the comments section of the metro on Feb 11th, 5 days ago. Would social media comments on a widely read newspaper website not be counted as contempt of court, as much as printing a letter in a newspaper?

Of course it's entirely possible it wasn't the person who's being named on a variety of pages (And the mysoganistic ****ers love this type of story), which would mean a second victim from the accusation, and increasing support for groups who are in favour of things like legalising rape.

 

[GB]

She has already been named on a number of sites if you google "Mark Pearson false rape accuser".