The Crown Prosecution Service this week announced the results of its review on prosecuting those who retract allegations of rape and domestic abuse (covered on the site here). The CPS decided that the law in this area needed to be clearer because of a case in Swansea where a woman was sent to prison for retracting an allegation, even though she was forced to retract it.
The problem with a case like this is the failure of the CPS and police to understand why this woman was placed in this position which therefore opens up the floodgates for the anti-male feminists to bring in new laws and rules in favour of women. They never miss a trick.
However, given the epidemic of prosecutions in the papers each week (61 women prosecuted for false allegations last year), the CPS have also recognised this remains a problem. This has been helped by some male Conservative MP's raising the problem in Parliament before the government's infamous u-turn on defendant anonymity, the numbers of clear cut cases where women have been sent to prison and the pressure from organisations like Parity, Men's Aid and of course the False Allegations Support Organisation (respondents listed here).
Whilst the premise for the CPS policy remains on protecting women who retract allegations and making it easier for them to do so (thereby it can be said encouraging them to make false allegations), there is now a clear test in the guidance for prosecuting false allegations which will help organisations helping men, men themselves and the police/prosecutors. Not just rape but also domestic abuse/violence.
These are in section 26 of the guidance which says:
Applying the public interest factors set out in the Code, prosecutors should bear in mind that a prosecution for perverting the course of justice is more likely to be required where -
- a false complaint was motivated by malice
- a false complaint was sustained over a period of time (particularly where there were opportunities to retract)
- the suspect in the original allegation was charged and remanded in custody
- the suspect in the original allegation was tried, convicted and/or sentenced
- the person who made the original allegation has previous convictions or out-of-court disposals relevant to this offence, or a history of making demonstrably false complaints
- the suspect in the original allegation was in a vulnerable position or had been taken advantage of
- the suspect in the original allegation has sustained significant damage to his or her reputation.
By stating it so clearly, this actually gives men and organisations supporting the falsely accused clearer power to challenge those making false allegations and put pressure on the police and CPS who refuse to prosecute.
One last point is on the silence of female groups involved in providing support to women who are raped or are victims of domestic violence. Whenever there is a story of women going to prison for a false allegation, you never hear a peep from Refuge/Women's Aid/Fawcett Society etc, even though that person making the false allegation is damaging those women who have been raped.
The only conclusion is that anti-male Marxist feminsists can never bring themselves to criticise a woman no matter how awful she has been. Their ideology dictates it so and shows that beneath the bonnett, no matter what has happened it is men=bad, women=good.
Posted by Skimmington
Media coverage - Guardian
Excellent analysis and some very promising criteria there.
Without wanting to sound too materialistic, the obvious omission is that of the financial cost of the false allegation and the waste of police resources. Some allegations in the past have been so serious and so sustained that the cost to the police alone has run into six figures.
We only have a limited number of police officers meaning that some false allegations create a situation where other crimes go unattended and unsolved and the vicitms fail to get justice I fell this should be taken into account also.
Posted by: John kimble | Monday, 11 July 2011 at 00:00