Meanwhile in New Zealand a familiar story emerges
False allegations of rape had to be taken seriously because of the damage they did to the credibility of real victims, Judge Tony Couch told a 31-year-old mother in Christchurch District Court today.
False complaints must be a matter of general public concern, he said at the sentencing after she entered a guilty plea.
"The resources of the police are limited and it is very much in the interests of society that it should be focused on real crimes as opposed to imagined or false allegations," Judge Couch said.
"It is difficult for many women to find the courage to make complaints of real crimes against them. That is often because their credibility is questioned.
"A false allegation of such an offence serves only to undermine the credibility of every woman who has genuinely been offended against."
Defence counsel Richard Maguire sought a discharge without conviction for the woman, who also has a case before the Family Court.
He said the complaint had been checked and found to be false within about an hour of her making it at the Papanui police station, and the man said to be involved had not been interviewed or accused by the police.
Judge Couch said the woman had had a troubled life with traumatic events in her childhood, a restrictive and unusual upbringing, and a limited education. A psychiatric report had been prepared for the sentencing.
He did not think an immediate penal sentence was called for and convicted the woman and ordered her to come up for sentence if called upon within the next year.
The following report by Eric Francis appears on the on the Eagle Times website
WINDSOR - A female inmate who admitted to making up allegations that she was repeatedly raped and drugged by a male guard at the Southeast State Correctional Facility will spend up to another six months behind bars as a consequence.
Pamela Yandow, 34, who has since been transferred to another women's facility in Waterbury, was sentenced to an additional three-to-six months time beyond her current sentence after she pleaded guilty Wednesday to giving false information to the law enforcement officers who were investigating her claims of abuse.
Following Yandow's sentencing, Corrections Officer Peter Lemieux said that he was pleased Yandow was being punished for making up stories about him, but he didn't think the maximum penalty provided for by the misdemeanor charge reflected the level of harm the false accusations caused him and other guards who have had similar charges leveled at them by inmates.
"It's character assassination and it causes a total invasion of your personal life and your work life," Lemieux said. "Her intent was to humiliate me and drag me through the mud and she succeeded in doing that.
"The administration and my supervisors were very supportive but it just kind of cast a shadow over me with my co-workers and caused me a huge amount of stress at work and at home," Lemieux said, as he described the intense investigation that was launched by several Vermont agencies after Yandow gave graphic descriptions of things Lemieux supposedly did to her - all of which authorities said turned out to be unfounded.
"Certain inmates use this type of allegation to retaliate against staff," Lemieux said. "Every male supervisor I know at Windsor has now been accused of either inappropriate sexual conduct or physical assault and all of them have been cleared," he said.
"I'm glad the state is starting to take these cases more seriously. That abuse reporting system is in place to protect real victims of crime and whenever an inmate does something like this it sets them all back," Lemieux said.
SAFARI
Posted by News Editor
Monday, February 05, 2007
The February edition of SAFARI has just been published
In this issue:
-
Anonymity for false accusers now under review;
-
False accusers could be made to give DNA samples;Adam Snape fined £200 despite having valid tax disc; United Campaigners for Abuse Investigation Reform (U-CAIR) National Spring-time Awakening Day reminder;
-
Andrew Adams' appeal successful - incompetent defence and failure to disclose evidence;
-
Claire Curtis-Thomas MP asks what changes have been made to guidance on the investigation of historic child abuse since 2002;
-
Peter Rainey cleared of rape and indecent assault;
-
Maria Marchese jailed for nine years after false rape claim during a four-year hate campaign; and more
There have been several reports in the national Press concerning the 'rape debate' The argument has become polarised between those who say rape is under-reported, and those who argue that men are especially vulnerable to false allegations of rape.
See:
Rape victims 'failed by police and courts' The Independent
Why is rape so easy to get away with? The Guardian
So are we weak on crime - think again The Times
The Times article by Camilla Cavendish is particularly interesting because it debunks the oft quoted statistic that less than 5% of case result in a convicytion. The Author aruges that those who claim this are confusing attrition rates with conviction rates which are considerable higher - indeed closer to 50%
Judge rejects plea that equitable to allow children's home abuse cases to be heard late
Our attention has been drawn to the following legal judgment (in Scotland) from June 2005 concerning applications for compensation. The judgment is useful not just for its ruling but also because in touches on law in Australia, England as well as Scotland. This is a long judgment so only a summary is shown below. You can obtain the full judgment from here It is not known whether the decision has been appealed.
"Three test cases in which individuals claimed damages for cruel treatment in the religious homes in which they were brought up, have been refused leave to proceed by a Court of Session judge.
The cases were brought by three former residents of Nazareth House, Glasgow, who brought the claims against the Congregation of the Poor Sisters of Nazareth, the order of nuns who ran the homes where the pursuers were brought up in the 1960s and 70s. Up to 600 other cases against charities and religious orders were said to depend on the ruling.
The pursuers had claimed that despite bringing the cases many years beyond the normal time limit, they had not been aware until other cases received press coverage from 1997 onwards that they had a civil right of action, and that had they complained earlier, no one would have believed them. But Lord Drummond Young ruled that both because of the length of time that had elapsed since the events complained of, and the actual prejudice demonstrated by the defenders, it was not equitable to exercise his discretion in the pursuers' favour.
The judge considered that both the loss of evidence available to the defenders and the decline in its quality, where the nuns concerned were now dead or no longer active, was "especially important where the delay following the events complained of is measured in decades rather than years". This was particularly so where social attitudes were markedly different in those days. "It would be quite unfair to judge events by any standards other than those that prevailed at the time", he said. This was relevant both to determining what should be regarded as excessive punishment and what was reasonable compensation.
Although Lord Drummond Young accepted that the pursuers had not realised they might be able to claim, he said this was because they had not thought about it rather than because they had thought about and rejected it. Because the law had to start from the position that everyone was aware of their rights, or could find out what these were, there was "no compelling reason" to allow them to bring claims out of time if they did not apply their minds to the question.
If the claims had been brought in time, he continued, it was likely as the law then stood that the defenders would not have been held liable for the actings of individual nuns. It was also relevant that the probable expense of defending the claims would be disproportionately large compared with the likely awards. The defenders could not simply pay over compensation because as a charity they owed a duty to their donors to ensure that they did not pay out money unless satisfied that they were under a legal obligation.
The judge also agreed that press articles purporting to quote the pursuers' solicitor, Cameron Fyfe, gave rise to a risk of prejudice through ill founded or exaggerated claims. Although he accepted that Mr Fyfe had not made all the comments attributed to him, "it is the printed version that is important".
For all these reasons, he said, but principally because of the lapse of time and the actual prejudice to the defenders (either of which would be sufficient on its own), he concluded "without hesitation" that leave to proceed with the actions should be refused. Concluding, he added: "it is clearly most upsetting for anyone to have to think in detail about unhappy memories of childhood. I cannot think that it is genuinely in the pursuers' interests to rake over those memories, especially where the individual nuns that are said to have been responsible are either dead or elderly. The care of children has moved on in the last 25 years, and institutions such as Nazareth House no longer exist. To that extent the pursuers' complaints have been vindicated. That may give them some comfort."
Claimants have criticised the decision and pledged to fight on, but Cameron Fyfe said that any appeal would depend on obtaining legal aid.
For the reasons stated above I will exercise my discretion under section 19A in favour of the defenders and refuse to allow the pursuers to bring the present actions. I reach this conclusion without hesitation. It seems to me that the two principal reasons for my decision, the length of time that has elapsed since the events complained of and the actual prejudice that has been demonstrated by the defenders, are both extremely powerful. I would regard either of those reasons by itself as sufficient to refuse to allow the actions to proceed. In addition, it was clear during their evidence that the raising of these actions has caused considerable distress to all three pursuers. That is entirely understandable; it is clearly most upsetting for anyone to have to think in detail about unhappy memories of childhood. I cannot think that it is genuinely in the pursuers' interests to rake over those memories, especially where the individual nuns that are said to have been responsible are either dead or elderly. The care of children has moved on in the last 25 years, and institutions such as Nazareth House no longer exist. To that extent the pursuers' complaints have been vindicated. That may give them some comfort."
According to a report on AHN [USA] Over one million false allegations of domestic violence are filed each year
A new report released on Monday sheds some light on an alarming issue. Over one million false allegations of domestic violence are filed each year. The accusations usually stem from a family break-up and the removal of children from their parents
"A Culture of False Allegations: How VAWA Harms Families and Children" outlines how the Violence Against Women Act defines "domestic violence" in broad terms. The definition spawned over one million claims of domestic "violence" each year in which physical violence is not even alleged.
The Violence Against Women Act defines domestic violence this way: "The term 'domestic violence" includes felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a current or former spouse of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse, ..."
State legislatures have used the word "includes," as a loophole. The word opens the door to broad interpretations. Law enforcement officials used that loophole to enact domestic abuse statues that allow people to claim they are merely "afraid" or "fearful" as the basis for a domestic restraining order. Subsequent legislations no have 63 percent of all states' definitions of domestic abuse include psychological distress and 33 percent incorporate the ill-defined legal allegation of "harassment."
Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, says "Everyone knows that restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply ... In many cases, allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage."
This is the view that even if there had been no violence, then the fear of violence would be sufficient to deny contact with the child(ren). Such fear is usually discussed as from the father on the mother, though violence in both directions is of about equal frequency.
A case involving Dan Iagatta of Foxboro, Mass. Gives a good example of the types of allegations flooding the legal system. Iagatta is a quadriplegic dad who is confined to a wheelchair, he was accused of domestic abuse by his wife and recently ordered to vacate his home.
Dan now has until the end of August to give his estranged wife 50% of the marital home in cash and $75,000 in 10 years and to pay back the two children's college funds tenfold and Dan is to surrender his $200,000 inheritance to his wife, she is allowed to keep her $250,000 inheritance and Dan has to remove a $40,000 elevator along with a $15,000 ramp and put all the doors back to their original location before his injury.
Even late night TV talk-show host David Letterman was formally charged with domestic violence. In a very bizarre case that shockingly made it into the court system a New Mexico woman accused him of harassing her with mental telepathic messages.
"False allegations of domestic violence have become so widespread that lawyers now call them a legal 'slam-dunk,'" notes RADAR spokesman Ron Grignol. "Some are saying we should pass a David Letterman Protection Act to curb the problem."
Restraining orders are now seen as part of the "gamesmanship of divorce," according to a 2005 article in the Illinois Bar Journal. A report written by RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting), a research and education organization documents how these false allegations violate civil rights and harm families. As a result, children often lose daily contact with one of their parents.
Sadly, the report shows how children who grow up in a single-parent home are greater risk of child abuse, academic failure, and a broad range of social pathologies.
Source: AHN
Two men who spent 18 years in jail for the murder of Carl Bridgewater, before being cleared, are fighting to be allowed to keep all their compensation.
Vincent Hickey, 49, and Michael Hickey, 42, of Birmingham, were jailed in 1979 over the boy's murder at Yew Tree Farm.
A court ruled in 2004 that the cousins should pay back what they had saved on "board and lodgings" while in jail.
In an appeal, their barrister told Law Lords it was against common sense to deduct "living expenses".
Ian Burnett QC, representing the Independent Assessor is to argue the deductions were "just and reasonable".
The appeal is being held before five Law Lords at the House of Lords.
On Monday, the Hickeys' barrister Philip Engelman told them: "It is revolting to the ordinary man's sense of justice to have a wrongfully convicted person effectively being asked to pay for his board and lodgings during the time he was incarcerated."
The barrister is also representing Michael O'Brien, who spent 10 years in prison after being wrongly convicted in 1998 of the murder of a Cardiff newsagent.
The Hickey's had their convictions quashed at the Court of Appeal in 1997.
Michael Hickey was awarded £990,000 in compensation and Vincent Hickey £506,220, subject to the deductions.
Mr O'Brien was awarded £670,000 subject to similar deductions.
"We say there should be generous compensation as a matter of domestic law and international law and it is an antithesis of such generosity to deduct from the men the costs of their accommodation," Mr Engelman said.
Paperboy Carl, 13, from Stourbridge, was shot dead in September 1978 at Yew Tree Farm, Wordsley.
The case has been adjourned until Tuesday .
Source: BBC
A victim of abuse at a children's home in the 1960s won £75,000 damages yesterday, the first award of its kind to be made by a judge in Scotland.
The man, referred to as J, now 54, had sought £175,000, and Lord Menzies agreed that the physical and sexual abuse he had suffered could be described as torture.
However, the judge said he had to take into account that J had managed to build a remarkably successful life, and the consequences of the abuse had been less catastrophic than they might have been.
Source: Scotsman
Dawn Annandale, the author of Call Me Elizabeth, a "true story" of a mother who turned to prostitution, has admitted lying about allegations of rape and wasting police time in court.
The 39-year-old bestselling author could face a prison sentence when she returns to Folkestone magistrates' court next month.
The court heard that she told police an intruder had broken into her home at Lyminge, near Folkestone in Kent, and raped her on 14 March last year. She believed that the accusation might delay a £35,000 debt collection court hearing against her three days later.
It was only after a seven-month police search for the offender, at a cost of £15,000, while panic spread among the residents of Lyminge who believed a rapist was on the loose, that one of Annandale's friends contacted the police to say she was lying.
Last October, Annandale admitted to lying about the rape (more)
Source: Independent On-line
The Protection of Vulnerable Groups Bill (Scotland) has just been introduced in Holyrood.
But before the proposed law has even been voted on, it has found its critics.
And the existing laws are under fire too.
The Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003 meant that anyone employed to work with children - from janitors to teachers - must undergo what's called "enhanced disclosure", background checks carried out by Disclosure Scotland.
In addition to looking at applicants' criminal records, names are compared to the so-called "Disqualified List", which records those who are barred from working with children.
Critics say the law is bureaucratic and cumbersome (more)
According to a BBC Scotland report (here) the Children's Commissioner, Professor Marshall said adults were now afraid to interact with children Adults are scared of working with youngsters because of strict child protection rules, MSPs were told.
The children's commissioner told Holyrood's education committee that the measures were taking an "absolutely ridiculous" toll on adults.
Professor Kathleen Marshall urged MSPs to address the issue, which she said risks leaving children neglected.
The measures are contained in legislation drawn up in the wake of the Soham murders.
Under the Protection of Vulnerable Groups Bill, a single agency will be formed to support a new vetting and barring scheme.
The scheme aims to ensure that people who should not be around children or vulnerable adults cannot access them through work. We've become so focused on protecting our children that we risk neglecting them
Professor Marshall said: "Whether it's the child protection machinery, whether it's their perception of it, people feel that they can't do things to an absolutely ridiculous extent.
"It can be very inhibiting.
"I know that some people say it's a misconception, but if it is, it's a very pervasive misconception."
The commissioner said a youth worker had told her about a trip from a rural area with two teenagers which had to be cancelled.
"They were told that they couldn't afford it because they would have to have two adult workers to accompany these young people," she said.
"When they were questioned why they needed two, the answer was 'What happens if one of them drops dead?'
"You have to think what the risk is that we're addressing here."
'Backing off'
She added: "People feel the need to cover their backs all the time and it's small play forums, voluntary agencies, saying this has to be addressed.
"People are just backing off from interaction with children and young people."
Other examples cited were of workers who needed a mountaineering certificate to take a group of youngsters up Arthur's Seat, and a lifesaving certificate before being allowed to collect seashells with a group of children.
"As a society, we've become so focused on protecting our children that we risk neglecting them," she said.
"Not only are we increasingly regulating things through disclosure checks and widening them out and out and out and down and down and down, but even once we've got them we still don't trust them.
"We still insist that people are there in hordes and that they're not allowed to be alone with a child and we put all sorts of restrictions on them."
Unity Injustice - a parent run support group for peole affected by social services action and decion making have updated their web site and re-located it. It can now be found at www.unity-injustice.co.uk
Anonymity rule must stay
Article in todays Guardian by Marcel Berlins, Monday January 15, 2007
The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, confirmed in the Lords last week that the government was "actively considering" removing the right to anonymity from women who falsely accuse men of raping them. He hoped for a decision "soon". I trust the decision will be a firm rejection of any such reform. It is unnecessary, it is unworkable, and it would inevitably result in even fewer women reporting that they had been raped, and therefore more rapists remaining at large. There is already a machinery for revealing the identity of a woman who makes a wholly fictitious allegation, possibly for malicious or revenge reasons, claiming a sexual encounter that has not taken place at all. In such blatant cases, she can clearly be prosecuted for perjury, or for wasting police time. Once she is charged, the media are legally entitled to name her. (True, the woman in the case that provoked the attorney general's inquiry - who had a history of making false accusations - has not been prosecuted, but many similar fantasists have.)
How, other than in obvious cases where the woman is shown to have invented the story entirely, can one be sure she has made a "false" allegation? What will be the criteria?
Most rape cases come down to a conflict of evidence - notoriously difficult to resolve - between the only two parties present. But when a jury returns a verdict of "not guilty" to a charge of rape, or other sexual offence, it is in no way stating that the man did not do it, or that the woman has falsely accused him of the crime. The jury is merely saying that it is not absolutely certain, on the evidence it has heard, that the man is guilty. This is a jury doing its job correctly, under the law. But even if a jury, or a judge, disbelieves the woman's evidence, that does not mean that she has made a false allegation justifying loss of her anonymity.
The government must not allow one highly publicised case - awful though it was for the man wrongly convicted - to drive it to tinker with a sensible law providing much-needed protection to vulnerable victims of nasty crimes.
Judges, only 300 years late, are to jettison their most distinctive and silliest appurtenances, their wigs. But not all judges. Those in the civil courts will be bare-headed; in the criminal courts it will be wigging as usual. Why? The story goes as follows. The judge sentences a young thug to prison. The accused's friends vociferously demonstrate their displeasure. Later, the judge is on his way home, on the same bus as the thug's burly friends. Shorn of his wig, he escapes unnoticed. Result: he does not risk a beating.
That is the perception shared by many judges in the crown courts, though there is no evidence at all that the lack of a judicial wig would endanger their safety. Judges in criminal trials virtually all over the world manage to remain unscathed without covering their heads.
It is also argued that the wigs give judges and trials dignity and gravity. And a survey finds the public wants them in criminal cases, by a majority of two to one. Those are not good reasons for keeping a tradition that no longer has any practical or symbolic validity.
A man falsely accused of sexually molesting a young girl in a supermarket today spoke for the first time about his nightmare ordeal.
Miroslav Machecek, a teacher from Prague in the Czech Republic, spent five months in prison and endured a living hell after being accused of indecently touching the 10-year-old as she stood holding her mother's hand in the delicatessen queue at a Wigan supermarket.
The girl's mother claimed that Mr Machecek reached his hand under the girl's right arm and started groping her chest, something that he has vigorously denied since being accused in March of last year.
Last week a jury at Liverpool Crown Court took just an hour and 15 minutes - including lunch - to clear him.
Mr Machecek said: "This is the first time in my life I have been in trouble with the police. I was scared in prison, they were saying that I had done bad things.
"I came here looking for work and a better life, but it has all turned into a nightmare and I have done nothing wrong."
Mr Machecek said he shopped in Asda frequently and on this occasion moved from one queue to the other because it was quite busy.
He added: "I did a joke with the child and touched her on the right shoulder. The mother looked toward her daughter and saw my hand there, I did not do anything wrong.
"In my country you can do a joke with a child, but here you can get in very serious trouble."
Mr Machecek, who came to live in this country in March 2005, spent five months in custody at Forrest Bank Prison in Manchester and Walton Prison in Liverpool awaiting trial.
He was refused bail on the grounds that he did not have his own place of residency.
The CCTV evidence shown in court was inconclusive, but two female witnesses told Liverpool Crown Court that they had seen Mr Machecek tap the child on the shoulder.
If he had been found guilty he would have been facing up to 12 years in jail.
Mr Machecek said: "I want to say thank you to the two women for telling the court what really happened. They saved me from going to jail."
He said he had been helped through this difficult time by Patrick McAvoy who teaches English to speakers of different languages at Wigan and Leigh College.
The two men met while Mr Machecek was attending his classes.
Mr McAvoy is currently providing Mr Machecek with accommodation at his home in Stirling Street, Swinley.
He said: "It is such a shame that this has happened. Now it's important that Miroslav gets a job as soon as possible, otherwise without any money he will have to back to the Czech Republic.
"Unfortunately he can't stay here for much longer, we're struggling for room and I have my own life to get on with.
"We've been to all the local job agencies to get Miroslav a job but with no luck. We're both hoping that something will turn up soon."
The following extract has been taking from the BBC News website
A man who was jailed but later cleared over false sexual assault claims by a woman has said people who make up allegations should be named publicly.
Warren Blackwell, of Woodford Halse, Northamptonshire, who spent over three years in jail, said the law had failed.
"Her anonymity remains, protected by a law designed to protect genuine victims of rape," he told BBC Radio 4's Today.
Ministers are looking at alternatives to the law, but one women's group said a change would be a "national scandal".
Mr Blackwell was convicted of indecent assault at Northampton Crown Court in 1999 and spent three years and four months in jail.
His conviction was quashed last year by the Court of Appeal and the judges recommended that details of his accuser be circulated among police forces to avoid similar cases in the future.
"The law makes no allowances to name and shame false accusers," Mr Blackwell told Today.
"For men like me, who have been the victims of a false allegation, the law has failed.
"If justice is going to be even-handed and applied to everyone equally, then the law has to change."
Annie Johnston, who acted as Mr Blackwell's barrister, said judges should have the power to stop people making up allegations that are completely unfounded.
"In cases where fabrication is overwhelming, the complainant is clearly lying, then the trial just should have the discretion to lift the anonymity," she said. (more)
Guardian Angel who served month inside claims police made new blunder
The following article by Mark Blunden appears in the Islington Tribune
A GUARDIAN Angel vigilante – who was freed in November after being jailed on a false robbery charge – has been wrongly arrested again after a police blunder.
Now Islington’s police borough commander, Barry Norman, said he would be personally investigating the claims.
The arrest comes after Freddie O’Neill, 44, a devout Christian and a father-of-five, spent a month in Pentonville and Bedford prisons on remand after a trainee detective believed an alleged crack-cocaine addict over Mr O’Neill, who has been commended for saving a police officer. Mr O’ Neill had been falsely accused of robbery.
The case was thrown out at Wood Green Crown Court after it emerged the alleged victim had lied and given a false identity on his witness statement.
But weeks after being freed Mr O’Neill was arrested and thrown into a police van as he walked his puppy, Rebel, close to his home on Caledonian Road.
He said: “They pulled up and told me I was in breach of my bail conditions. I couldn’t believe it since at the time there was so much publicity in the Tribune.
“I was thrown in a police cell for 24 hours and my dog was taken away too.
“I was screaming my innocence but they wouldn’t listen.’
Mr O’Neill was taken to Shoreditch police station and Rebel was taken to Toldpuddle Street in Angel.
“I was unconscious in the cell but then, the following night, they just released me and the desk sergeant said ‘sorry, we made a mistake’.
“This was despite my protestations and calls from my solicitor telling them I had been freed by the judge unconditionally.”
Even though officers apologised to Mr O’Neill he believes it adds weight to his case which is currently being investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
He believes police were targeting him because of his campaigning for the Fathers4Justice pressure group.
Mr O’Neill, who worked as a doorman prior to his initial arrest, said: “I’m not going to let this get me down and I’m not going to let the police damage my life.”
Mr O’Neill served two years for violence offfences in the 1980s.
But since then, he has found God, and, although he still kickboxes to keep fit, he has renounced violence and become a registered Guardian Angel, with the London arm of the US vigilante organisation.
Mr O’Neill has tackled numerous drug dealers and robbers and has even received a commendation for saving a British Transport Police officer from being beaten up by four football hooligans.
A police spokeswoman said: “We will continue to look into this matter and contact Mr O’Neill and this will be receiving the personal attention of the borough commander.”
Full Story
The Christmas Edition of FACTion has now been added to this web site. The file was very large and has compressed to enable quicker downloading. Printed out version may appear a little blocky so oyu might prefer to read it on screen..
A report in the The Observer by Henry McDonald, Ireland editor on
Sunday January 1, 2006 reportd thats:
Irish taxpayers are to fund most of what is likely to be the largest payout from public funds to child abuse victims anywhere in the world. Organisations representing clerical abuse victims and members of the Dail claim the final co