Wife jailed for 'false retraction' of rape to appeal

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote: »

Yes first time it's happened in the UK.

My question is more does the principal of precedent apply in the UK family courts [was this family or criminal court? Not clear on that].

Ectoplasm

Reading that update that Theadyal posted, it does not seem like justice was served at all in this case.

metrovelvet

EMF2010 wrote: »

Reading that update that Theadyal posted, it does not seem like justice was served at all in this case.

She broke the law. From a prosecutors point of view this wasted a lot of time and pushed back an already long waiting list of cases unnecessarily.

I think eight months in prison is outrageous especially given that the UK imo is very light on sentencing when it comes to murderers and sex offenders.

IITYWYBMAD

metrovelvet wrote: »

Is this precedent setting?

Thaedydal wrote: »

Yes first time it's happened in the UK.

metrovelvet wrote: »

My question is more does the principal of precedent apply in the UK family courts [was this family or criminal court? Not clear on that].

This was no more precedent setting than a common DUI case. People have been tried and convicted of perverting the course of justice many many times before for lying in a statement to police.

For a perfect example of precedence have a look at Roe V Wade, which involved a false accusation of rape, and is probably the most famous precedence setting case of our time. (The rape allegation was not central to the verdict btw)

I've no idea what court this was tried in, but it is a criminal offense and I would suspect she was tried and convicted in the High Court as there is no Family Law jurisdiction here afaics.

Ectoplasm

metrovelvet wrote: »

She broke the law. From a prosecutors point of view this wasted a lot of time and pushed back an already long waiting list of cases unnecessarily.

I think eight months in prison is outrageous especially given that the UK imo is very light on sentencing when it comes to murderers and sex offenders.

Yes she absolutely did break the law and I've never disputed that, but it does sound like she was a victim long before the alleged rape ever occured. Eight months is shocking - tbh I'm not sure any custodial sentance was warranted. I've seen much worse offenders receive suspended sentances and/or community service.

stimpson

Sentencing guidelines for Perverting the course of Justice specify 4 to 12 months. It has no maximum sentence.

I'm not sure people here appreciate how serious an offence it is. I imagine sentencing is harsh to discourage others from lying to police, regardless of the circumstances.

metrovelvet

stimpson wrote: »

Sentencing guidelines for Perverting the course of Justice specify 4 to 12 months. It has no maximum sentence.

I'm not sure people here appreciate how serious an offence it is. I imagine sentencing is harsh to discourage others from lying to police, regardless of the circumstances.

It must right under perjury. She gave a sworn statement and then said she lied, so lied about lying. I understand why, but OMG.

echosound

Update:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/nov/23/mother-retracting-rape-allegation-freed

Nevyn

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/nov/23/mother-retracting-rape-allegation-freed

Woman jailed for falsely retracting rape claim is freed

Lord chief justice says there is important distinction between false allegation of rape and false retraction of rape allegation

The most senior judge in England and Wales today freed a mother who had been jailed for retracting "truthful" allegations that she had been raped by her husband.

Overturning her eight-month sentence, Lord Judge, the lord chief justice, criticised the Crown Prosecution Service's decision to prosecute the 28-year-old woman, who he accepted had been the victim of prolonged domestic abuse and been put under pressure by her husband to withdraw the allegations. Judge said there should be "a broad measure of compassion for a woman who had already been victimised".

It was, he said, "an extreme case" which he hoped would not be repeated. "We hope that it will be very exceptional for cases of this kind to be prosecuted to conviction in the crown court," said Judge, who was sitting in London with Mr Justice Calvert-Smith and Mr Justice Griffith Williams.

The appeal judges ruled that the "appropriate" sentence was a community sentence with a two-year supervision order, and ordered her immediate release from Styal prison in Manchester.

Though delighted at her release, the woman's family said she was distraught at being sent to jail away from her children.

"The system has failed her and she knows it," the woman's older sister told the Guardian. "She is devastated. She can't believe it ended this way."

Campaigners described the ruling as a "turning point" but said it was wrong that the victim was the one left with a criminal record while her husband walked free.

Clare McGlynn, professor of law at Durham University, said: "Where is the recognition that the woman is the victim here? How come a victim of domestic violence and rape is the one with a two-year community sentence and a criminal record? What does this say about the way the authorities deal with rape victims? It's especially worrying given the climate over the last couple of months with the proposal to grant anonymity to rape defendants, which was underpinned by the belief that a high number of rape complaints made by women are untrue."

Lisa Longstaff from Women Against Rape said: "While we are relieved the woman has been freed, we are outraged that the lord chief justice did not rule that she should never have been prosecuted in the first place. It is common for women and girls to be pressed to withdraw, by attackers, family members and/or police. Imprisoning rape victims for supposed false allegations is discouraging other victims from reporting and encouraging rapists to carry on. It is a perversion of justice by the authorities."

The woman was picked up at the prison gates by her older sister and immediately began a battle to get her children back from her estranged husband.

He was supposed to hand the children to the woman's sister when his wife was jailed on 5 November, but refused to do so, the high court heard.

"She is seeing a solicitor first thing tomorrow to get a non-molestation order against her husband, and to get the children back," the woman's sister said.

At the appeal hearing, Judge said he hoped the family courts would resolve the issue as soon as possible.

"The litigation should be started as soon as is practicable," he said.

The woman's journey through the criminal justice system began last November, when she dialled 999 to report that she had been anally, orally and vaginally raped by her husband, who she had been with for nine years.

She was taken to a women's refuge and he was charged with six counts of rape.

But before his case reached trial the woman contacted police to say she wanted to drop charges – though in a police interview, "she continued to assert that the allegations she had made against her husband were true," said Judge.

After protracted negotiations the woman, from Welshpool, was charged with perverting the course of justice on the basis of making a false complaint, but she later asserted that it was the retraction, rather than the allegation of rape, which was false. Because of this, the lord chief justice said, when the woman was jailed at Mold crown court earlier this month, "her sentence had to be assessed on the basis that she had perverted the course of justice by falsely retracting a truthful allegation that her husband had indeed raped her".

The court also heard that the husband's sister had visited and suggested that if she pleaded guilty and said she had lied about being raped, she would get a suspended sentence, whereas her husband could receive "up to 10 years". Her husband also pressurised her to drop the charges.

"On her account – and we emphasise that we have not heard his - she was subjected to violent abuse and became very fearful of him," said Judge.

Judge said that when she was questioned she described feeling under pressure and an "immense sense of guilt" and told of being in "an emotional and confused state".

He pointed out that perverting the course of justice was not confined to making and pursuing false allegations or giving false evidence, but extended to the retraction of truthful allegations or evidence.

He added: "The difference between the culpability of the individual who instigates a false complaint against an innocent man and the complainant who retracts a truthful allegation against a guilty man will often be very marked."

Experience had shown that withdrawal of a truthful complaint of a crime committed within a domestic environment often stemmed from pressure "sometimes direct, sometimes indirect, sometimes immensely subtle".

Women who were raped by a husband or partner, whose behaviour involved "dominance, power and control over her", became "extremely vulnerable".

Judge said sentencing judges should "recognise and allow for the pressures in which the truthful complainant in such a relationship has been exposed".

Holly Dustin, director of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, said: "This must be a turning point in the way rape is dealt with by criminal justice agencies."

goose2005

Campaigners described the ruling as a "turning point" but said it was wrong that the victim was the one left with a criminal record while her husband walked free.

Clare McGlynn, professor of law at Durham University, said: "Where is the recognition that the woman is the victim here?

I don't know Clare, where is the evidence that "the woman" is the victim?

Imprisoning rape victims for supposed false allegations is discouraging other victims from reporting and encouraging rapists to carry on.

And not imprisoning those who make false allegations encourages others to make false allegations.

LittleBook

Wait a sec ... "false allegation" = no rape took place. "False retraction" = ???

How could she be convicted of a "false retraction" unless there was evidence (SOMEwhere) that the retraction itself was false, meaning her initial allegation was true?