Retractions and repercussions

An acquaintance recently told me that a policeman friend of hers believes the number of false rape allegations made in the UK is actually very high because he has seen so many rape claims withdrawn before they come to court. He said although the police party line is that very few of the allegations turn out to be false, privately many officers think differently.

The high retraction rate of rape claims is one of the reasons for the high attrition rate - the number of reported cases that never result in a conviction for the crime. Only around 6% of all rapes reported to the police actually result in a conviction for rape.

It is perhaps understandable some police officers have formed the opinion that many rape claims are false when they see woman after woman refusing to participate in their investigations. But in fact, it's far more likely that women are withdrawing their allegations out of fear - fear of retribution or fear of what they will face in the courtroom.

One especially shocking case happened last year when a woman who had reported being raped by her abusive husband withdrew her allegation and was jailed for eight months for perverting the course of justice. Her sentence was later overturned at the Court of Appeal, where it was accepted that her allegations had been withdrawn under coercion from her husband.

The Criminal Prosecution Service was criticised for its decision to prosecute her at all and as a result, a consultation is now underway to offer new guidance which it's hoped, will prevent women, who have already been the victims of rape and coercion, from then becoming a victim of a misguided criminal justice system.

But what about vulnerable and traumatised women whose courage crumbles when they are hit by the full reality of what they will likely experience at the hands of court barristers?

As The Guardian's Legal Affairs Correspondent, Afua Hirsch put it in an article published last December:
"an adversarial court system does not encourage vulnerable or traumatised people to come forward. Far from the stereotypical view of slighted women quick to make false accusations, the prospect of being forensically examined by doctors, then cross-examined by barristers, is enough to deter many genuine rape victims from the prospect of justice altogether."

Crying wolf...false rape claims and misconceptions

It is impossible to assess the number of false rape claims made in the UK and Baroness Stern has requested in her review that further research be done to try and establish how prevalent they are.

But she also says "the research that is available on false allegations gives a wide range of figures for how many there are, although those we spoke to in the system felt that there were very few" (my italics).

But false rape claims attract a disproportionate amount of press coverage - we can speculate about the reasons for that - resulting in a widely held view that such allegations are relatively common. When a woman (usually a woman) is convicted of making such a claim, a custodial sentence is commonly handed down.

The 2005 report by Kelly, Lovett, and Regan, A Gap Or A Chasm, suggested that the proportion of all rape allegations made that are subsequently found to be false is around 3%. Three in every hundred.

Undoubtedly, being the victim of a false allegation of rape is a horrible experience and can impact on the person for many years, as the allegation will be on their record and show up in Criminal Records Bureau checks.

But that does not mean the victims of sex crimes should be automatically doubted when they tell their story. Because it's far more likely they are telling the truth.

And too many rapists are escaping justice because they are often the ones being given the benefit of the doubt rather than their victims.

I believe the first response to someone's account of a distressing sexual assault is to say WE BELIEVE YOU.

If hard evidence later comes to light that the allegation was false, then action should be taken accordingly.

(Although I would question whether retribution in the form of a prison sentence is the most effective form of punishment here. Perhaps the person concerned should make amends, rather than be incarcerated at a high cost to tax-payers?)

Too drunk to spot the difference - a valid defence?

On the 26th of February, The Daily Mail reported the case of Haydor Khan, a 22 year-old waiter who was charged with rape after going into a sleeping woman's room at a small hotel in Surrey and having sex with her.

Khan's defence was that he was too drunk to realise the woman wasn't his girlfriend.
Khan's girlfriend, according to the report, had already refused sex with him earlier in the evening because she was feeling ill.

For reasons best known to itself, the Daily Mail then tagged another report on the end of its account concerning a prosecution of a woman for making a false rape claim.
It should be stated here that rapes are depressingly common. False rape claims are rare, but they attract a disproportionate amount of press coverage.

A fortnight later, the newspaper followed up its report of Khan's acquittal with a piece from the point of view of the woman Khan had accosted. Joanne Freeman chose to waive her right to anonymity so the Daily Mail could report her anger and disbelief at the verdict.

She told the paper that "the verdict made her feel suicidal, adding: ‘It was excruciating telling a jury of strangers what happened. It has devastated the whole family. My father is heartbroken and my own daughter had to sit through the court case.’
"Her friend Karen Berry, 43, said Miss Freeman had ‘changed completely’, adding: ‘She is a shell of her former self. She tries to be strong but then you see she has a vacant look in her eyes or she breaks down.’"

So, from what we can gather from the two reports, a jury accepted that Khan's drunken belief he had the consent of the woman he "accidentally" had sex with, didn't constitute rape.

IS THIS REALLY JUSTICE?