National Register of False Accusers

[friday]

not telling you i know more than them, im telling you what the legislation says and what my barrister and 2 police officers told me (his barrister obviously also said it but not directly to me cos obviously i didnt speak to him except in court).

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003...ch1-pb3-l1g101

CJA 2003
01Defendant’s bad character
(1)In criminal proceedings evidence of the defendant’s bad character is admissible if, but only if—
(a)all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible,
(b)the evidence is adduced by the defendant himself or is given in answer to a question asked by him in cross-examination and intended to elicit it,
(c)it is important explanatory evidence,
(d)it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution,
(e)it has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant,
(f)it is evidence to correct a false impression given by the defendant, or
(g)the defendant has made an attack on another person’s character.
(2)Sections 102 to 106 contain provision supplementing subsection (1).
(3)The court must not admit evidence under subsection (1)(d) or (g) if, on an application by the defendant to exclude it, it appears to the court that the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.
(4)On an application to exclude evidence under subsection (3) the court must have regard, in particular, to the length of time between the matters to which that evidence relates and the matters which form the subject of the offence charged.

[Rights Fighter]

(g)the defendant has made an attack on another person’s character.

And there we have it - the defendant says "I didn't do it, the complainant is lying" - which is considered to be an attack on the complainant's character.

If the defendant is not saying that, then there will be no trial as he will have admitted guilt.

So therefore, the bad character (previous convictions) can and will be put to the jury.

It's a matter of interpretation (and common sense).

[friday]

well then i do not understand why i was not allowed to mention his previous convictions and the fact he skipped bail etc. yet he was allowed to make the absurd story up that showed him a video of my sisters taking drugs. i assumed it was because of part (3) since i was told that to mention it could mean he didnt have a fair trial.

(3)The court must not admit evidence under subsection (1)(d) or (g) if, on an application by the defendant to exclude it, it appears to the court that the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.

[Rights Fighter]

Doesn't this just go to show that they do not stick to the rules. I know that for a fact, due to the cases I review for appeal.

Guilty people "get off" and many innocent are sent to prison for crimes that were never committed. The whole judicial system as far as sexual offences (and alleged sexual offences) is a complete and utter shambles.

However thank you for the tips - I can make use of them hopefully in some of my cases using stronger arguments.

[friday]

there is a petition on number10.gov.uk and one of the points is about allowing evidence of previous convictions. http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page14159 obviously the reply is a little vague in places. i have tried to find info on a change in legislation or clarification in legislation but so far all i can find is proposed changes, no evidence they have been passed. obviously i only have access to things on the internet but usually you can find any ammendments online so i dont know....

its all a bit unclear, but i guess thats the point. its up to the discretion of the judge, so it depends what judge you get. i guess you would also have to weigh up the pros and cons of both mentioning previous convictions, or both not (obviously if the victim had recent convictions for fraud and gbh and the accused only had a conviction for cannabis possession when he 16 then it may be "worth" having the accuseds mentioned just so you could mention the victims)

[Rights Fighter]

Unfortunately for both sides, deals are brokered between defence and prosecution barristers - for instance no bad character goes in for defence in return for no bad character of the complainant.

In one case I recently reviewed there was a deal that no good character could go in for the defendant in return for no bad character (of the defendant). The "bad character" was actually only hearsay evidence and not proved fact.

In another case a previous conviction (defendant) for something unrelated was not put to the jury in return for not putting the bad character of the complainant, who had previously accused somebody else of sexual offences, who had protested his innocence.

So you see, there is no hard and fast rule as to good/bad character.

[davet]

Rather than providing a register, Personnaly I believe that there should be a provision to prosecute people who make false allegations, not only in rape, but in any form, by way of a 'malicious prosecution' case.

However, this would be very difficult to 'police' as I appretiate that this would very probably deter justified complainants from reporting actual offences as they would run the risk of not only suffering the actual 'crime' but could also suffer from a further prosecution against them themselves.

It is a very difficult area and I feel that 're-prosecutions' if that is the word, should only be allowed to be carried out if there is actual and solid evidence that a false allegation has been made.

Alternatively, why not make the police accountable for cases brought to the courts which have little chance of success due to lack of evidence and improbable chance of success, brought by them in the belief that if they throw enough ****, some of it will stick.

Which makes me wonder, are there any statistics available which shows failed prosecutions brought by the police which were dismissed, or the defendant found not guilty, due to lack of evidence. (I doubt it very much).

The only other alternative which I have personally found is to attempt a prosecution aginst the actual police force in question. As some may know, I suffered a full crown court case for GBH some years ago and although found not guilty (as I was) the actual case brought against me by the police was peppered with so many discrepancies that a normal person, or as the law says, the man on the clapham omnibus, would have laughed at the case brought against me, yet it still went ahead causing me not only a year of stress and worry but also lost me my home, my business, and quite often my sanity.

I therefore, after a while, found a solicitor who would bring a case of 'malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office' against the police force in question, however, I have recently been advised that the LSC have decided to withdraw public funding for prosecutions against the police unless in certain circumstances, which to a large extent makes the police unaccountable for their 'errors', so much for a duty of care, unless you find yourself in the position of being 'maliciously' charged with a crime on Friday and winning the lottery on Saturday!

So it would appear that in suggesting that the police be held accountable, in view of the reversal of funding against the police, I have managed to shoot myself in the foot!!!!!

The problem with holding a register of people who make false allegations, is that if it is consulted initially on an allegation, it may deter a prosecution being brought when an actual offence has been commited, remember the boy who cried wolf, and it may make someone a target for the sicko's in our society, which would make us damned if we do and damned if we dont

As I said, a very difficult area

[Lusijay]

I think lying about rape is sexual assault on who you are accusing, so I agree there should be repercussions x

[whatsgoingon?]

11K and the rest from the state for everyone found to have been falsley accused? At least one unlucky member on here whould be doing extremely well. Seriously, if ever FA's were allowed to claim Victim Support, I bet the police and CPS would think twice at the possibility of a compainant making a false accusations. I don't think a register's a bad thing, it would only really help to identify someone who's already made a false accusation. I don't know if it exists for other crimes but perhaps it should.

[Ghost biscuit]

Hi

Hi,

Just thought I would say that we all know no system is perfect. So what is the difference of putting an innocent person in prison and an innocent person on a falsely accused register?

Regards,

Ghost....B