Wife jailed for 'false retraction' of rape to appeal

metrovelvet

Zulu wrote: »

It's not that it's more palatable that the woman would lie, it's that it's bitterly unpalatable that a man is automatically found guilty by certain groups/people, even when it's been acknowledged that the woman was lying.

It's the complete instantaneous disregard of the possibility that the man may not actually be a monster & that the woman, by virtue of not having a penis, is automatically innocent, that irks me. It smacks of sexism.

But it hasn't been acknowledged that she was lying. ITs been acknowledged that she chickened out. You are the one who claims she was lying.

Nevyn

Zulu wrote: »

It's not that it's more palatable that the woman would lie, it's that it's bitterly unpalatable that a man is automatically found guilty by certain groups/people, even when it's been acknowledged that the woman was lying.

And I have heard the same things said but reversed that even after a man has been convicted that the women was lying and was a slut/whore who was out to ruin him.

Zulu wrote: »

It's the complete instantaneous disregard of the possibility that the man may not actually be a monster & that the woman, by virtue of not having a penis, is automatically innocent, that irks me. It smacks of sexism.

Again I have heard it said that the victim is lying and that the woman is a whore/slut/mental/stupid because respectable women do not put themselves in a place or position to be raped.

Both genders suffer from the sexual double standards and the Irish societies screwed up relationship with sex
and that consent is not taught about in schools.

Wibbs

Thaedydal wrote: »

Both genders suffer from the sexual double standards and the Irish societies screwed up relationship with sex
and that consent is not taught about in schools.

This in a big way.

The Corinthian

Thaedydal wrote: »

They do I don't dispute that what so ever.

Actually that is not quite true; much of the problem with false accusations comes from the social stigma attached to the presumption of guilt and as IITYWYBMAD pointed out the accused, unlike the accuser, has no legal right to anonymity. So the law is not terribly good at protecting the accused.

That is not always the case but the myths about false accusations are damaging. Many people seem to think there is a much higher rate of false rape accusations then there really is.

Less then 10% of rape accusations are said to be false, but it seems more palatable to people that a woman would lie about rape then a man to rape so people's views are skewed.

Reading the link you supplied there is no consensus on the percentage of false rapes that are reported, and your 10% figure appears to be one of the most conservative ones listed, with most of the other studies showing figures above 40%. So with all due respects, your claim of 10% is not credible.

Even were it under 10%, this does not justify making that 10% immune from prosecution for what is also a horrific crime.

Rape cases are not held in camera, the main witness will often have to wait outside to be called where they can often find themselves interacting with the friends and families of their attackers, and then give their testimony and be cross examined in open court where many of the details of her life will be used to discredit her.

But we're not talking about reform of aspects of the trying of rape cases such as these. Of course there is plenty of room for reform in how these cases are tried to better protect the accuser. What we are discussing is something completely different; punishing those guilty of false accusations.

And naturally a defense will attempt to discredit the accuser. It's called a defense - or should an accuser, often the only witness to such cases, simply be taken at her word without question?

As horrific as rape is, you cannot throw the very principles of justice out the window.

The Corinthian

Thaedydal wrote: »

And I have heard the same things said but reversed that even after a man has been convicted that the women was lying and was a slut/whore who was out to ruin him.

True, but the man has been convicted. What you are suggesting is immunity for women who commit the serious crime of false accusation, so they never will be.

Nevyn

The Corinthian wrote: »

True, but the man has been convicted. What you are suggesting is immunity for women who commit the serious crime of false accusation, so they never will be.

So what is the yardstick then for false accusation if the only way to prove it is not false is if there is a conviction?

metrovelvet

Sorry but this is not about false accusations. We dont know if the woman in the OP made a false accusation. All we know is she bailed out in the middle of an investigation and people are stretching the abstraction to fit this case in with false accusation cases. And its a typical tactic used by defense attorneys; discredit the witness.

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote: »

So what is the yardstick then for false accusation if the only way to prove it is not false is if there is a conviction?

Exactly. And then you have a situation where an acquittal for the defendant by default means a prosecution for the for the accuser.

Ectoplasm

The Corinthian wrote: »

And naturally a defense will attempt to discredit the accuser. It's called a defense - or should an accuser, often the only witness to such cases, simply be taken at her word without question?

I understand that a defense will attempt to discredit the accuser, but for me, the methods used are incredibly distasteful and disgusting. Using a possible victims sexual history to suggest promiscuity is shameful but this is what happens. Interesting article about this here.

Regarding the whole 'false accusation' I actually thing the best thing to do is to pursue those who make them. Where it is clear cut BS, active and public prosecution should follow. I think people who make up false stories on this are scum. It demeans every real victim and creates a new victim in terms of the person accused.

metrovelvet

EMF2010 wrote: »

I understand that a defense will attempt to discredit the accuser, but for me, the methods used are incredibly distasteful and disgusting. Using a possible victims sexual history to suggest promiscuity is shameful but this is what happens. Interesting article about this here.

Regarding the whole 'false accusation' I actually thing the best thing to do is to pursue those who make them. Where it is clear cut BS, active and public prosecution should follow. I think people who make up false stories on this are scum. It demeans every real victim and creates a new victim in terms of the person accused.

They have rape shield laws in the US for what you mention in your first paragraph. Dont think they made it across the Atlantic yet.

http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbID=DB_FAQ:RapeShieldLaws927

Ectoplasm

No, they don't really have them here. They sort of have them, in that afaik that line of questioning is at the judges discretion (I'm no expert on this and could be wrong) but it happens all too often. The article I linked to referenced the need for a more formal system.

Mr. Presentable

1 The woman in the OP may or may not be a false accuser. Neither her evidence nor the accused defence have been heard. The fact that the charge of making a false accusation was dropped doesn't mean she didn't make one, any more than the fact she made an accusation means the other party is guilty of rape.

2 The accuser gets identity protection the accused does not. This naturally means the accused is stigmatised whether guilty or not.

3 A rape charge can be, and often is, brought without the requirement of evidence other than the word of the accuser. This almost reverses the innocent until proven guilty tenet of law as the defence has to prove innocence (effectively)

4 If the woman in the OP has a substantiable case against the accused it is her civic duty once she makes the accusation to allow it to be tried. Otherwise once the case is prepared she is effectively perverting the course of justice.

Rape is wrong and life damaging. It should be punished severely
Making an accusation you are unprepared to support is also wrong, and life damaging. It should be punished.

My only quibble with the Court's decision is that eight months is disproportionate - eight weeks would be enough to discourage others. She probably won't actually do any time anyway.

The Corinthian

Thaedydal wrote: »

So what is the yardstick then for false accusation if the only way to prove it is not false is if there is a conviction?

No, because one still would have to prove a (premeditated) attempt to pervert justice. The defendant in such a case is just as entitled to be considered innocent until proven guilty as the accused in the rape case is.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Sorry but this is not about false accusations. We dont know if the woman in the OP made a false accusation.

It became about false accusations when it was presumed here that the accused man was guilty and the accusation could not be false.

EMF2010 wrote: »

I understand that a defense will attempt to discredit the accuser, but for me, the methods used are incredibly distasteful and disgusting. Using a possible victims sexual history to suggest promiscuity is shameful but this is what happens. Interesting article about this here.

That's a fair point and one that occurred to me also after posting. As I said, how rape is handled should be reformed, but we need to keep the balance just and presuming the man is guilty does not do that.

Regarding the whole 'false accusation' I actually thing the best thing to do is to pursue those who make them. Where it is clear cut BS, active and public prosecution should follow. I think people who make up false stories on this are scum. It demeans every real victim and creates a new victim in terms of the person accused.

Fair enough - but how do you codify BS in law? Merda taurorum?

metrovelvet

Who assumed the accusation could not be false? Where?

I see no problem with protecting the identity of the defendant until there is a conviction. I would also applaud a sex offender's list once a conviction is made.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

Who assumed the accusation could not be false? Where?

It is pretty difficult to deny that there was a presumption that he was guilty at the outset of this thread - it was one of the largest topics of argument for most of it.

And if guilty, it logically follows that the accusation cannot be false. QED.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

It is pretty difficult to deny that there was a presumption that he was guilty at the outset of this thread - it was one of the largest topics of argument for most of it.

And if guilty, it logically follows that the accusation cannot be false. QED.

I am denying it because I cant see it. Where is it? What I could see is there was a suspicion it could be true, but no absolute assumption of guilt.

stimpson

Thaedydal wrote: »

So what is the yardstick then for false accusation if the only way to prove it is not false is if there is a conviction?

A false accusation would have to be proven in court in a separate case. It would have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. If an accused rapist is found not guilty that is not enough to prove there was a false accusation. There is still a burden of proof on the DPP and additional evidence would be required to bring a case such as an admission or a witness. And the DPP would have to decide if a prossecution was likely.

Even then, presumption of innocence still applies and the woman is assumed innocent until proven guilty.

metrovelvet

I have a question about Irish rape and sexual assault charges. Is it the state or the person who presses charges? Can someone make a statement and then decide not to press charges or is the case of someone making a statement and then the state calls them in as a witness?

stimpson

metrovelvet wrote: »

I have a question about Irish rape and sexual assault charges. Is it the state or the person who presses charges? Can someone make a statement and then decide not to press charges or is the case of someone making a statement and then the state calls them in as a witness?

The DPP is responsible for prosecuting in criminal cases.

There is a lot of information up here:

http://www.dppireland.ie/victims_and_witnesses/

Nevyn

metrovelvet wrote: »

I have a question about Irish rape and sexual assault charges. Is it the state or the person who presses charges? Can someone make a statement and then decide not to press charges or is the case of someone making a statement and then the state calls them in as a witness?

It's both.
A person presses charges and it is investigated and a file sent to the Department of Public Prosecution and if there is enough of a case to take then the DPP proceeds but it is the state prosecuting the case and the person who pressed charges has no control over the case how it's handled prosecuted and is only a witness to the crime.

Usually if a person with draws the charges then the case is dropped, esp if the prime witness is no longer willing to co operate.

Does the DPP prosecute cases on behalf of crime victims?

The DPP prosecutes cases on behalf of the people of Ireland, not on behalf of any one individual. For this reason, the views and interests of the victim cannot be the only consideration when deciding whether or not to prosecute.

However, the DPP will always take into account the consequences for the victim of the decision to prosecute or not. The DPP will also consider the views of the victim or the victim’s family.

hondasam

Her husband has since appeared in court and pleaded not guilty to rape.
Mr Parry told the court the woman had been moved to a safe refuge while police investigated. Then she attempted to withdraw the allegations.
"There was a conference between the police and CPS and in the light of the fact she said the allegations were true they said the case would go ahead," said Mr Parry.

False retraction
He said alarm bells started ringing for prosecutors when the woman admitted she and her husband had consensual sex soon after the alleged rapes.

"The crown started to worry about their case," said Mr Parry.
Gordon Hennell, defending, said: "When she embarked on making a false retraction she did not realise the seriousness of what she was doing. She does now.
"She perverted the course of justice in relation to a series of events in which she was the victim."
Mr Hennell said the woman had been in an abusive marriage which has now ended.

He alleged the defendant changed her mind as the result of "emotional blackmail" from her husband and his sister.
Judge Rogers said: "If you had to be dealt with for making a false allegation of rape you would be looking at a sentence of two years.

"The position has now changed but there are two aggravating features.
"One you have caused a substantial amount of wastage for the CPS and police, and two you have had to admit that retraction was false, perverting the course of justice, and for that the imposition of a prison sentence is inevitable."

metrovelvet

hondasam wrote: »

Her husband has since appeared in court and pleaded not guilty to rape.
Mr Parry told the court the woman had been moved to a safe refuge while police investigated. Then she attempted to withdraw the allegations.
"There was a conference between the police and CPS and in the light of the fact she said the allegations were true they said the case would go ahead," said Mr Parry.

False retraction
He said alarm bells started ringing for prosecutors when the woman admitted she and her husband had consensual sex soon after the alleged rapes.

"The crown started to worry about their case," said Mr Parry.
Gordon Hennell, defending, said: "When she embarked on making a false retraction she did not realise the seriousness of what she was doing. She does now.
"She perverted the course of justice in relation to a series of events in which she was the victim."
Mr Hennell said the woman had been in an abusive marriage which has now ended.

He alleged the defendant changed her mind as the result of "emotional blackmail" from her husband and his sister.
Judge Rogers said: "If you had to be dealt with for making a false allegation of rape you would be looking at a sentence of two years.

"The position has now changed but there are two aggravating features.
"One you have caused a substantial amount of wastage for the CPS and police, and two you have had to admit that retraction was false, perverting the course of justice, and for that the imposition of a prison sentence is inevitable."

That is very strange. Why would she have consensual sex with a man who raped her and why would he have consensual sex with a woman who charged him with rape?

ztoical

metrovelvet wrote: »

That is very strange. Why would she have consensual sex with a man who raped her and why would he have consensual sex with a woman who charged him with rape?

Battered Wife Syndrome

LittleBook

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

Making an accusation you are unprepared to support is also wrong, and life damaging. It should be punished.

Careful now! No-one (male or female) can be prepared for what they have to go through in the legal system when they are the victim of any crime. Reporting a crime and seeing it through to the end (sometimes years later) are completely different things.

And this idea that people who are unable to see a lengthy criminal investigation and trial through from beginning to end should be punished is a reason a lot of charges are never made or later charges are dropped and, as far as I can tell, is the concern of many posters here.

Rape & Justice in Ireland

- 40% of the victims of reported rapes considered withdrawing the charge due to the poor reaction by gardaí
- only one 1 in 3 rape cases is actually brought to trial
- of those brought to trial, only 7% result in convictions

hondasam

http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/wife-jailed-for-rape-retraction-1.731257

She told officers she had been persuaded by her husband and his family to drop the charges because he could face a long jail sentence if convicted of rape while she would get only a few months.

On Friday, distraught relatives of the woman shouted at Judge John Rogers, QC, as he jailed her at Mold Crown Court.

The judge said the woman had changed her position again after being told she would be prosecuted for a false allegation of rape which could have carried a longer sentence of up to two years.

metrovelvet

hondasam wrote: »

http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/wife-jailed-for-rape-retraction-1.731257

She told officers she had been persuaded by her husband and his family to drop the charges because he could face a long jail sentence if convicted of rape while she would get only a few months.

On Friday, distraught relatives of the woman shouted at Judge John Rogers, QC, as he jailed her at Mold Crown Court.

The judge said the woman had changed her position again after being told she would be prosecuted for a false allegation of rape which could have carried a longer sentence of up to two years.

Wow. From what I have read from the various news reports the family seem pretty confident he would have faced a conviction.

hondasam

metrovelvet wrote: »

Wow. From what I have read from the various news reports the family seem pretty confident he would have faced a conviction.

I cannot understand why she feels any sympathy for him. I know rape within a marriage is different but she claimed he raped her six times. I have since read the are separated now.

IMO she is saying yes he raped me but I dont want him to be punished and I will go to jail for him because I will only serve a short sentence. I do not think that is a good message for other male or female victims of rape.

ztoical

hondasam wrote: »

I cannot understand why she feels any sympathy for him. I know rape within a marriage is different but she claimed he raped her six times. I have since read the are separated now.

IMO she is saying yes he raped me but I dont want him to be punished and I will go to jail for him because I will only serve a short sentence. I do not think that is a good message for other male or female victims of rape.

It's a classic sign of Battered person sysndrome - they have low self-esteem, often believe that the abuse is their fault and will often seek out their very abuser for comfort. They will defend the abuser if others try and attack them and it's very rare for them to press charges themselves.

metrovelvet

hondasam wrote: »

I cannot understand why she feels any sympathy for him. I know rape within a marriage is different but she claimed he raped her six times. I have since read the are separated now.

IMO she is saying yes he raped me but I dont want him to be punished and I will go to jail for him because I will only serve a short sentence. I do not think that is a good message for other male or female victims of rape.

Well, it gets complicated. Who knows. Look what happened to Patty Hearst.

It must be a total mind **** to be bonded with someone and care for someone who does horrible things to you.

The Corinthian

ztoical wrote: »

It's a classic sign of Battered person sysndrome - they have low self-esteem, often believe that the abuse is their fault and will often seek out their very abuser for comfort. They will defend the abuser if others try and attack them and it's very rare for them to press charges themselves.

Or the classic sign of someone who made a false allegation to begin with and had an attack of conscience when they discovered the consequences of such an action.

Or classic sign of something else again.

Truth is, we don't know.

hondasam

ztoical wrote: »

It's a classic sign of Battered person sysndrome - they have low self-esteem, often believe that the abuse is their fault and will often seek out their very abuser for comfort. They will defend the abuser if others try and attack them and it's very rare for them to press charges themselves.

yes maby but you dont know anything about their life or relationship so you cannot assume it is battered person syndrome. Were there other incidents ? had she reported abuse before this incident ?

metrovelvet

^ Yes I thought that too for a second. But then why would someone accused of rape sleep with the person who accused them of rape and pressed charges.

I suppose we dont know if or how much the family pressured her but if they did then it would seem they were pretty confident in his guilt. I would think he would want to go to court to clear his name.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

^ Yes I thought that too for a second. But then why would someone accused of rape sleep with the person who accused them of rape and pressed charges.

They had consensual sex soon after the alledged rapes - there was no mention of it being after the accusation, from what I can see. Even if it were, they could have reconsiled and had make-up sex. And then things got out of control.

We actually can't say anything with any degree of certainty, except that they had a very dysfunctional relationship.

I suppose we dont know if or how much the family pressured her but if they did then it would seem they were pretty confident in his guilt. I would think he would want to go to court to clear his name.

Or confident of his conviction, which is not the same thing. Indeed, where does it say they were confident of his guilt or conviction? Personally, in their shoes, I wouldn't want a family member to be dragged through the courts regardless.

ztoical

hondasam wrote: »

yes maby but you dont know anything about their life or relationship so you cannot assume it is battered person syndrome. Were there other incidents ? had she reported abuse before this incident ?

"Mr Hennell said the woman had been in an abusive marriage which has now ended"

hondasam

ztoical wrote: »

"Mr Hennell said the woman had been in an abusive marriage which has now ended"

he could be talking about the alleged rapes only, did it say anywhere that she had been beaten by her husband or any other type of abuse ?. is there any report of other incidents. what do we know about this couple really. how long were the married, any children, was he violent or abusive before the marriage?

The Corinthian

ztoical wrote: »

"Mr Hennell said the woman had been in an abusive marriage which has now ended"

Her lawyer said that his client was in an abusive marriage. Go figure. It must be true then.

Would people like to actually read these reports before jumping to conclusions?

Bah, the there's too many pitchforks being waved around here and I should have left things with my first post in this thread. Life's too short.

hondasam

The Corinthian wrote: »

They had consensual sex soon after the alledged rapes - there was no mention of it being after the accusation, from what I can see. Even if it were, they could have reconsiled and had make-up sex. And then things got out of control.

We actually can't say anything with any degree of certainty, except that they had a very dysfunctional relationship.

Or confident of his conviction, which is not the same thing. Indeed, where does it say they were confident of his guilt or conviction? Personally, in their shoes, I wouldn't want a family member to be dragged through the courts regardless.[/QUOTE]

nor would I but neither would I let a man who raped or abused my daughter walk free to abuse some other girl.

metrovelvet

hondasam wrote: »

The Corinthian wrote: »

They had consensual sex soon after the alledged rapes - there was no mention of it being after the accusation, from what I can see. Even if it were, they could have reconsiled and had make-up sex. And then things got out of control.

We actually can't say anything with any degree of certainty, except that they had a very dysfunctional relationship.

Or confident of his conviction, which is not the same thing. Indeed, where does it say they were confident of his guilt or conviction? Personally, in their shoes, I wouldn't want a family member to be dragged through the courts regardless.[/QUOTE]

nor would I but neither would I let a man who raped or abused my daughter walk free to abuse some other girl.

You might just do that if the process would destroy your daughter or mother or sister.

I certainly would not go through with it myself.

ztoical

The Corinthian wrote: »

Her lawyer said that his client was in an abusive marriage. Go figure. It must be true then.

Would people like to actually read these reports before jumping to conclusions?

The jumping to conclusions is going both ways with how people are forming their opinions on just the information on offer.

I've had a very good friend of mine wrongly charged with rape by a flatmate just because he caught her trying to pull a fast one on him with the rent. It took months to get sorted and he still had to go to court and deal with the whole mess so I have zero time for women who use the threat of rape charges as a way to control or attack people and would support a heavy jail time for it but the impression I have of this case is that is not what happened here.

hondasam

The battered woman defense is a defense used in court that the person accused of an assault / murder was suffering from battered person syndrome at the material time. Because the defense is most commonly used by women, it is usually characterised in court as battered woman syndrome or battered wife syndrome.

There is currently no medical classification to support the existence of this "syndrome" in the sense used by lawyers, though it has historically been invoked in court systems. Although the condition is not gender-specific, the law has been persuaded to remedy perceived gender bias in the operation of the defense of self-defense by admitting evidence of the condition. Thus, this is a reference to any person who, because of constant and severe domestic violence usually involving physical abuse by a partner, may become depressed and/or unable to take any independent action that would allow him or her to escape the abuse.

The condition explains why abused people may not seek assistance from others, fight their abuser, or leave the abusive situation. Sufferers may have low self-esteem, and are often led to believe that the abuse is their fault. Such persons may refuse to press charges against their abuser, or refuse all offers of help, perhaps even becoming aggressive or abusive to others who attempt to offer assistance.

This has been problematic because there is no consensus in the medical profession that such abuse results in a mental condition severe enough to excuse alleged offenders. Nevertheless, the law makes reference to a psychological condition,[1] even though neither the DSM nor the ICD medical classification guides as currently drafted includes the syndrome in the sense used by lawyers

metrovelvet

^ I think traumatic bonding is in the dsm iv under post traumatic stress disorder.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nsYp6V6dsa4J:esl.rutgers.edu/graduate_writing_program/courses/academic_writing_II/media/a_paper.doc+traumatic+bonding+dsm&cd=20&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=safari

This is an interesting paper entitled 'Contradictory Behavior in Acquaintance Rape Victims"

AN EXCERPT:

Contradictory behavior of acquaintance rape victims has been sometimes observed, where victims have sexual relations with the offender after the rape incident for a long period of time, a few months to several years. The relations may be caused by psychological impacts of the rape incidents. The behavior makes the victims delay disclosing their experiences to others or seeking help, although early disclosure and seeking help are an initial step of the long recovery process for rape victims. In addition, victims may face more difficulties than victims who had no relation with the offender when trying to make others understand- police officers, court personnel, significant others, psychiatric practitioners, as well as themselves. The questions of this paper are why do the victims have sexual relations with the offenders after the rape incident and how often does the situation occur in the acquaintance rape incidents. This paper may help victims who have similar experiences to understand themselves and to be understood appropriately by others.

ztoical

hondasam wrote: »

The battered woman defense is a defense used in court that the person accused of an assault / murder was suffering from battered person syndrome at the material time. Because the defense is most commonly used by women, it is usually characterised in court as battered woman syndrome or battered wife syndrome.

There is currently no medical classification to support the existence of this "syndrome" in the sense used by lawyers, though it has historically been invoked in court systems. Although the condition is not gender-specific, the law has been persuaded to remedy perceived gender bias in the operation of the defense of self-defense by admitting evidence of the condition. Thus, this is a reference to any person who, because of constant and severe domestic violence usually involving physical abuse by a partner, may become depressed and/or unable to take any independent action that would allow him or her to escape the abuse.

The condition explains why abused people may not seek assistance from others, fight their abuser, or leave the abusive situation. Sufferers may have low self-esteem, and are often led to believe that the abuse is their fault. Such persons may refuse to press charges against their abuser, or refuse all offers of help, perhaps even becoming aggressive or abusive to others who attempt to offer assistance.

This has been problematic because there is no consensus in the medical profession that such abuse results in a mental condition severe enough to excuse alleged offenders. Nevertheless, the law makes reference to a psychological condition,[1] even though neither the DSM nor the ICD medical classification guides as currently drafted includes the syndrome in the sense used by lawyers

I never said it was a valid defence. Someone asked why a person would stay and have sex with someone who had raped them and vice versa and it was just a quicker and more direct reply then going into a massive spiel about Domestic violence.

hondasam

ztoical wrote: »

I never said it was a valid defence. Someone asked why a person would stay and have sex with someone who had raped them and vice versa and it was just a quicker and more direct reply then going into a massive spiel about Domestic violence.

fair enough so you are not stating she was/is suffering from battered person syndrome.

ztoical

hondasam wrote: »

fair enough so you are not stating she was/is suffering from battered person syndrome.

No I'm not stating anything one way or the other, to state something would be to imply fact which of course no one on here can claim. The wording of the newspaper pieces of this womans actions read like the actions of a woman coming from an abusive relationship rather then some scorned woman getting cold feet or however else it is some people are reading it in my opinion. As I already said I've zero tolerance for those women who make false claims as they stop people who really have been raped coming forward but I really don't feel that is what happened in this case.

hondasam

ztoical wrote: »

No I'm not stating anything one way or the other, to state something would be to imply fact which of course no one on here can claim. The wording of the newspaper pieces of this womans actions read like the actions of a woman coming from an abusive relationship rather then some scorned woman getting cold feet or however else it is some people are reading it in my opinion. As I already said I've zero tolerance for those women who make false claims as they stop people who really have been raped coming forward but I really don't feel that is what happened in this case.

well I guess it depends on how you interpret it really. I would have imagined if there was a history of abuse it would have been said in court. Im sure there will be more stories printed. I have read she has lost her appeal.

Mr. Presentable

LittleBook wrote: »

Careful now! No-one (male or female) can be prepared for what they have to go through in the legal system when they are the victim of any crime. Reporting a crime and seeing it through to the end (sometimes years later) are completely different things.

And this idea that people who are unable to see a lengthy criminal investigation and trial through from beginning to end should be punished is a reason a lot of charges are never made or later charges are dropped and, as far as I can tell, is the concern of many posters here.

Rape & Justice in Ireland

- 40% of the victims of reported rapes considered withdrawing the charge due to the poor reaction by gardaí
- only one 1 in 3 rape cases is actually brought to trial
- of those brought to trial, only 7% result in convictions

Unable and unprepared are not the same thing!

What I am saying is, if you are willing to destroy a person's reputation you should be impelled to support your accusation.

I don't see where your stats are pertinent, except as fog.

hondasam

Update


http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/nov/12/woman-jailed-rape-appeal-refused

Nevyn

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/nov/12/woman-jailed-rape-appeal-refused

Woman jailed for retracting rape claims is refused appeal

Rape allegations against husband were withdrawn – with woman saying she had been 'emotionally blackmailed'

A woman jailed for "falsely retracting" allegations that she had been raped six times by her husband is to remain in prison after being refused permission to appeal against her eight-month sentence.

The 28-year-old was this month sent to jail for perverting the course of justice for withdrawing the rape allegations. Not because they were false, she said – but because her estranged husband and his sister had "emotionally blackmailed" her into doing so.

An application to Judge John Rogers, made in chambers, for permission to appeal was turned down yesterday, ending any hope of bail.

Her solicitor, Phil Sherrard, said the case would now go to the Court of Appeal. "The judge decided that his original decision was correct and he wasn't going to change his mind," he said.

"We will be pushing them to accept a bail application or deal with the issue of bail as soon as possible. If we have to wait for the appeal itself that could take up to four months, in which time she will be coming out of prison and the damage will already have been done," he added.

Sherrard said his client, who is in Styal prison, near Manchester, and was not at the hearing, was "crushed" by the process that has incarcerated her and put her children in the care of her husband, who abused her over 10 years, according to her family. "She was distraught and horrified when she discovered her children are now with her husband," he added.

According to the woman's sister, her husband attacked his former wife as recently as 28 October this year. Some months after being made to leave the family home, he returned there and pulled his estranged wife out of the house by her hair before ripping off her clothes, said the sister, who cannot be named for legal reasons.

"One of her older children later told the police he saw her run back into the house with no clothes on," the sister said.

He was arrested and the child and mother were interviewed, but no charges were brought. Sherrard said the husband had also been arrested in September, after breaking into the house in the early hours. He was released on conditional bail and banned from going near her or the house, but the Crown Prosecution Service did not press charges. The restraining order was lifted on the day of the latest alleged attack.

Campaigners have called for her immediate release, saying the prosecution, which is believed to be a legal first, ignored the pressures placed on abused women by the perpetrators of such crimes. They argue it could make victims less likely to report rape to police if they fear a jail sentence for withdrawing the allegations.

The woman, from Powys, rang 999 in November last year and said she had been raped six times by her husband. He was then charged with rape.

In January, she told officers she wanted to drop the charges, even though she still maintained they were true, but the next month said she had lied about the rape claims, and that they were untrue.

Officers from Dyfed-Powys police arrested her and she was charged with perverting the course of justice. In July, the woman changed her mind once again, saying the rapes had happened.

Her solicitor said she had previously lied because she was being "emotionally blackmailed" by her husband – who is much older than her – during the breakdown of their marriage.

She told officers she had been persuaded by her husband and his family to drop the charges because he could face a long jail sentence if convicted of rape, while she would be jailed for only a few months.

The woman was told by the judge that she had wasted a "substantial amount" of time and money for the CPS and the police. She was sentenced for perverting the course of justice but her husband is unlikely to face trial. All charges against him have been dropped, the CPS said.

metrovelvet

Is this precedent setting?

Nevyn

Yes first time it's happened in the UK.