More CPS incompetence: False Accusation

[DarloRich]

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

No I don't. What is your definition of fabricated? Is it different to the current legislation? The justice process in cases of a sexual nature is traumatic enough for victims. How many do you think would come forward knowing they may be convicted for seeking and failing to find justice?

Would you not, in the position of the acquitted, not immediately push for a false allegation conviction and compensation? I would regardless of whether or not I actually committed the alleged crime

Would you not have your lawyers seeking to use that lever from day one to have the case thrown out? I would.

Would you not have your lawyers use that threat of a counter conviction to bully a complainant to withdraw their case? I would.

Do you not see how that could have a devastating effect on the success of criminal prosecutions - especially in the sphere of sexual assaults?

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.

There often is with sexual assaults, especially those outside of the immediate family. They don't tend to be lone events but part of a long term pattern of behaviour.

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?

As i said this case, on the face of it, seems VERY odd. There must be more not in the public domain as I can not see how this case got to trial. There is, after all, only the view of the exonerated ( and rightly very angry!) man in the press.

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!

They are already. That is why I find this case so hard to understand. On the face of it it looks very odd.

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.

You still tend witnesses, other victims etc to come forward and help secure a conviction. Whilst the poor man in this case was entirely innocent there are many cases built from one complaint via the publication of details in the press. That's why it is a difficult balance to strike between the public interest in seeing the guilty convicted and the public interest in protecting the innocent.

Also part of seeing justice being done is to see when people are acquitted. That is an important part of the process.

 

[northwichcat]

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

Importantly not British based sites and it's also important that no-one from the Britain posts her name on any forum, unless they are an MP.

 

[DarloRich]

Importantly not British based sites and it's also important that no-one from the Britain posts her name on any forum, unless they are an MP.

only an mp in speaking in parliament may claim parliamentary privilege - to do so in the street would lead to an unpleasant conversation with the police for the MP.

hence why people are challenged to repeat their allegations made in Parliament in the street and don't! See the Ryan Giggs case and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege

 

[northwichcat]

hence why people are challenged to repeat their allegations made in Parliament in the street and don't! See the Ryan Giggs case

The silly thing about that was naming Imogen Thomas because as a result of doing that it meant Spanish paper Marca named Imogen Thomas in the same sentence as Ryan Giggs in an online article and you didn't need to know much Spanish to put 2 and 2 together to get 4.

 

[andyb2706]

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

I think in this case the definition of falsely is given in the reporting that she claim he bumped hard into her shoulder and that she screamed out loud. Now if you hear a scream even if you don't go over you have a look and from the reporting there was no evidence on the CCTV of any response from the other members of public or as it states the gentleman did not break his stride.

I am all for anonymity for the victim but there should be caveat that if there is clear evidence that the so called victim of the case has made false accusations they should be named and prosecuted in wasting police time.

However, this should only apply where clear evidence of a lie has occurred. If the accused is just not found guilty through lack of evidence and there is no evidence of a lie from the victim the victims anonymity should remain IMO.

 

[Geezertronic]

No I don't. What is your definition of fabricated?

There is a wealth of difference between someone who reports a claim and is found out to be lying (fabricated), and someone who reports a real claim only for the accused to be found not guilty.

In this case, based on the evidence in the public domain and the rather exaggerated statements that have been published from the supposed victim that were not backed up by the CCTV evidence, I suggest the former applies in this case and it is these false/fabricated claim cases that are detrimental

 

[Tetchytyke]

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!

Craig Charles' career tanked mostly because of his liberal use of Colombian Marching Powder, tbh.

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

And depending on which site you look at depends on the name. I've seen at least two different names mentioned.

I am all for anonymity for the victim but there should be caveat that if there is clear evidence that the so called victim of the case has made false accusations they should be named and prosecuted in wasting police time.

People who make false rape allegations are prosecuted and, when convicted, named in public. If they're not prosecuted then the police and the CPS don't believe that they made a false allegation. Where there is clear evidence that an allegation is false (and sometimes, as in the case of Eleanor de Freitas, even when there isn't any evidence at all) the CPS will prosecute.

The thing many people struggle to grasp is that just because someone is acquitted it doesn't mean the plaintiff is a liar. It might mean the accuser is a deceitful liar, it might also be that they were genuinely mistaken, or that the incident happened but the police arrested the wrong person, or that the actions weren't quite enough to be criminal, or simply that it was one person's word against another's and there was insufficient proof.

Under English and Welsh law there is no verdict of "innocent"; it is simply guilty or not guilty, which here means "anything other than certain guilt". This is one area where Scottish law is more enlightened. There are three verdicts in Scottish criminal law: guilty, not guilty and not proven. Not guilty is reserved for when a jury is certain that the accused did not commit the act; if they think the accused might have, but there's insufficient proof, then "not proven" is used.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In this case, based on the evidence in the public domain and the rather exaggerated statements that have been published from the supposed victim that were not backed up by the CCTV evidence, I suggest the former applies in this case

Just bear in mind that the "evidence in the public domain" was released by the defence solicitor and will, of course, be selective.

 

[miami]

The "victim" could have genuinely believed she'd been assaulted. I'm not a fan of "perp walks", and tend to err on the "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" side.

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.

If a person did commit the crime they were charged with, after they've been found guilty, then by all means drop the anonymity. Other cases can then come forward and the person charged again, and sentences increased appropriately.

If the person is not guilty, there is no excuse to drag their name through the press.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And depending on which site you look at depends on the name. I've seen at least two different names mentioned.

So there's at least two victims from this, the innocent man incorrectly accused and the innocent woman incorrectly accused. There's possibility of a third victim (the woman who did accuse, and most likely did so in good faith).

The one-sided anonymity has caused this. Anonymity on both sides means that only the guilty get their names in the media. Anonymity on neither side means at least innocent people aren't accused of being the source of the allegation.

In today's internationally connected world, the name of the accuser will come out no matter what the court says. Unfortunately the names of non-accusers will also come out. Where the truth is hidden, lies can flourish.

Under English and Welsh law there is no verdict of "innocent"

Of course not, that's because everyone is innocent, it doesn't need a court to prove that, it's a fundamental human right.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The one-sided anonymity has caused this. Anonymity on both sides means that only the guilty get their names in the media. Anonymity on neither side means at least innocent people aren't accused of being the source of the allegation.

The victim of Chedwyn Evans has repeatedly had her name dragged through social media, to the extent that she's had to flee her home, despite the fact that Chedwyn Evans was convicted of raping her and had the appeal against his conviction refused in the Court of Appeal.

Similarly the child victim of Adam Johnson has been repeatedly named on social media, being labelled as many unpleasant things, despite the fact Johnson has pleaded guilty to abusing her despite knowing she was a child.

I'm assuming you're not arguing that a rape victim should be named just in case someone else is named as the victim instead. So I don't really understand what point you are making.

 

[radamfi]

There is no solution, if people continue to have children. If you have a child, there is a risk of that child being assaulted or being wrongfully accused. If people thought twice before having a child we wouldn't be having this discussion. We certainly shouldn't be having boys at least.

 

[DarloRich]

There is no solution, if people continue to have children. If you have a child, there is a risk of that child being assaulted or being wrongfully accused. If people thought twice before having a child we wouldn't be having this discussion. We certainly shouldn't be having boys at least.

what on earth are you talking about?

 

[radamfi]

what on earth are you talking about?

There are two problems here: people getting assaulted and people getting wrongly accused. I have posted a solution. Have you got a better one?

 

[DarloRich]

There are two problems here: people getting assaulted and people getting wrongly accused. I have posted a solution. Have you got a better one?

that cant be a serious solution. It is silly.

 

[WelshBluebird]

The "victim" could have genuinely believed she'd been assaulted.

In which case she needs mental health help rather than trying to get someone prosecuted!

 

[radamfi]

that cant be a serious solution. It is silly.

On the contrary. Already about a quarter of women in the UK don't have children, so it is a totally viable way of life. With greater awareness of the ethical and moral considerations that could easily increase. Other European countries as well as Japan are ahead of the game and have far fewer children than the UK.

The alternative is more rape and more lives ruined as a result of false accusation. You surely can't be happy with that?

 

[NSEFAN]

The alternative is more rape and more lives ruined as a result of false accusation. You surely can't be happy with that?

Is it unreasonable to expect people to instead stop behaving like animals and start being calm, rational human beings who don't rape and kill each other in the first place? I'd argue we're actually reasonably good at that, certainly in this country. It's not perfect, but it's getting there.

 

[radamfi]

It's not perfect, but it's getting there.

That's the problem. It's not perfect, and never will be. Humans are human. Come on, we even have to have a police force and army just to keep us safe! I don't think it is ethical to allow people to get drawn into the "experiment" and to be collateral damage.

 

[DarloRich]

On the contrary. Already about a quarter of women in the UK don't have children, so it is a totally viable way of life. With greater awareness of the ethical and moral considerations that could easily increase. Other European countries as well as Japan are ahead of the game and have far fewer children than the UK.

The alternative is more rape and more lives ruined as a result of false accusation. You surely can't be happy with that?

That's the problem. It's not perfect, and never will be. Humans are human. Come on, we even have to have a police force and army just to keep us safe! I don't think it is ethical to allow people to get drawn into the "experiment" and to be collateral damage.

Is this serious viewpoint? You seem to be suggesting that the human race should just stop.........................

 

[radamfi]

Is this serious viewpoint? You seem to be suggesting that the human race should just stop.........................

Why should it continue when it is so destructive?

 

[DarloRich]

Why should it continue when it is so destructive?

ok. Bye.

 

[radamfi]

ok. Bye.

So you are happy for people to suffer unimaginable pain?

 

[DarloRich]

So you are happy for people to suffer unimaginable pain?

I am sorry but what on earth are you talking about? I almost hesitate to ask further but you seem to have a very bleak and depressing view of the world. You seem to be angry that you were even born!

 

[radamfi]

I am sorry but what on earth are you talking about? I almost hesitate to ask further but you seem to have a very bleak and depressing view of the world. You seem to be angry that you were even born!

But on this thread we are discussing the incredibly bleak consequences of human behaviour. Can it really be ethical to allow someone to be subjected to such trauma? It really is a simple thing that humanity can't even get right despite millennia of so-called civilisation. The good thing is, not having children is such an easy thing to do, and the fact that so many people already avoid it by choice means that you can't really go wrong with following that strategy. Not having children is easier than having children, after all.

 

[DarloRich]

But on this thread we are discussing the incredibly bleak consequences of human behaviour. Can it really be ethical to allow someone to be subjected to such trauma? It really is a simple thing that humanity can't even get right despite millennia of so-called civilisation. The good thing is, not having children is such an easy thing to do, and the fact that so many people already avoid it by choice means that you can't really go wrong with following that strategy. Not having children is easier than having children, after all.

So your answer to the problem of making false accusations in a court of law is to end the human race? Can you not see how that might seem a tad bonkers and perhaps ever so slightly disproportionate to the problem?

Personally, i would go with harsher penalties for those found guilty, but I can see how the destruction of civilisation and the return of the earth to mother nature would be equally acceptable. :roll:

( I hate to see what the solution for vast ethnic genocide is? The immediate denotation of the planet earth and the destruction of every living microbe thereon. :roll

 

[NSEFAN]

So you are happy for people to suffer unimaginable pain?

But life isn't completely filled with unimaginable pain. My life has had difficult times, as has everyones' lives, but that's not the whole story. I'd say over all my life has been pretty good and I'd wish everyone to have the same opportunities that I've had. Rather than be defeatist, why shouldn't we instead strive to provide everyone a good quality of life? Yes tomorrow I could be hit by a bus or falsely accused of rape by the CPS, but that's not so bad that the rest of my life is completely pointless.

In fact, life is made more enjoyable by having a positive outlook. Take this case for example: someone was falsely accused of rape, but the correct thing happened in the end once the evidence was seen. The accused was found not guilty and can get on with their life. Plus, the dodgy antics of the CPS (i.e. slowing down the footage) are being talked about in the public domain. Our ability to do this allows us to speak out against such practices and hopefully stop them from happening again (or at least reducing the likelihood).

 

[miami]

The victim of Chedwyn Evans has repeatedly had her name dragged through social media, to the extent that she's had to flee her home, despite the fact that Chedwyn Evans was convicted of raping her and had the appeal against his conviction refused in the Court of Appeal.

Similarly the child victim of Adam Johnson has been repeatedly named on social media, being labelled as many unpleasant things, despite the fact Johnson has pleaded guilty to abusing her despite knowing she was a child.

I'm assuming you're not arguing that a rape victim should be named just in case someone else is named as the victim instead. So I don't really understand what point you are making.

No, I'd have thought that was obvious. I'm suggesting the only reasonable course would be to have anonymity for both parties, until and unless someone is found guilty.

 

[455driver]

I am still struggling to understand how she knew she had been penetrated by 3 fingers, surely (once touched in that area) no self respecting person would wait and count the number of fingers before reacting and would 'jump' from being startled like that.

 

[radamfi]

So your answer to the problem of making false accusations in a court of law is to end the human race? Can you not see how that might seem a tad bonkers and perhaps ever so slightly disproportionate to the problem?

That is only one of the severe problems we are exposed to. What about disease, death, heartache, irreconcilable political differences etc. etc.

I'm not advocating mass suicide. Just have the current population to live out their days.

 

[Gutfright]

I'm not advocating mass suicide. Just have the current population to live out their days.

That's an intelligent, compassionate position to take but with one major flaw. Only ethical people will participate, selfish people will continue to breed, effectively removing empathy from the gene pool. The human race would continue and in much worse form than it currently is.

Going back to the OP, while the CPS decision is mystifying to me, equally difficult to understand is why someone would think to themselves "You know what I'll do today? I'll accuse a random passer by of sexual assault, just to see what happens ". Why would anyone do that?

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm suggesting the only reasonable course would be to have anonymity for both parties, until and unless someone is found guilty.

But both Evans and Johnson have been found/pleaded guilty. Their victims still got named.

The desire to name the victims of sexual assault has nothing to do with the "injustice" of the accused being named in the media.

Going back to the OP, while the CPS decision is mystifying to me, equally difficult to understand is why someone would think to themselves "You know what I'll do today? I'll accuse a random passer by of sexual assault, just to see what happens ". Why would anyone do that?

I have to say I find this case bizarre too. The CCTV (at least the released CCTV) clearly shows he didn't do it and, even more importantly, that he couldn't have done it. But the CPS thought they had enough evidence to bring to trial, which tends to imply the accuser was plausible and consistent and there was some evidence the alleged assault had happened. Bear in mind that judges can throw out cases long before the jury get to decide if it is abundantly clear that there is no evidence to support the charge. I can't help but wonder why that didn't happen if the prosecution case is as weak as the defendant is claiming.

I can't help but wonder whether it did happen but that the police have arrested completely the wrong person.

If not, I'd agree with people wanting to see the accuser charged with perverting the course of justice.