Scottish juries could hear of false accusations in rape cases

[Izzy]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottis...ases-1-2529848

Will be an interesting outcome in this appeal.
I think it should be disclosed in court if someone has made a previous false accusation. Up to the jury to decide on the case being heard.
Don't know if I can be objective on the matter though

[Rights Fighter]

I know of cases in England where a previous false accusation has been put to the jury.

It's difficult to get that evidence admitted though as in a recent case it came under a Section 41 Application (Previous Sexual History) and they are notoriously difficult to achieve. In a recent trial I attended we were allowed our Section 41 and then previous allegation was then put. Even then the accuser did not admit that it was false.

Extract: However, one of the victims, who was referred to as “ALW”, had made a separate allegation against him in 2006. She said that she and a friend had been abducted and driven to a wooded area, where he demanded they perform sex acts on him and each other.

However, she later admitted fabricating that story and was charged with wasting police time.


Defence lawyers for CJM wanted to use this evidence in the trial, but the judge ruled against them. The case has been referred to the Appeal Court and will be heard by five judges on 6 and 7 November.

In the above case she had already admitted to lying about that very same defendant and they still would not allow that to go before the jury. Words fail me.

Extract:Campaign group Rape Crisis Scotland warned that any move that allows juries to know if women have made a previous, false complaint, would skew the odds of a *successful prosecution against victims.

It argues that some women change their mind about whether they want to make a complaint and believe the only way then of stopping the case is to say the allegation is not true, even if it is.

These women are breaktakingly stupid.

[Izzy]

[QUOTE=Rights Fighter;32628]I know of cases in England where a previous false accusation has been put to the jury.

It's difficult to get that evidence admitted though as in a recent case it came under a Section 41 Application (Previous Sexual History) and they are notoriously difficult to achieve. In a recent trial I attended we were allowed our Section 41 and then previous allegation was then put. Even then the accuser did not admit that it was false.



In the above case she had already admitted to lying about that very same defendant and they still would not allow that to go before the jury. Words fail me.



Me too, especially as it says he was accused by the defendant of crimes between 1990 and 1998 and the false accusation was in 2006.
I believe that appeals in these kind of cases in Scotland have a time limit to be made. If thats correct it would mean he was jailed quite recently on the earlier accusations and the fact that the accuser was actually charged with wasting police time made no difference as - At present, previous false complaints are only raised in court if they are part of a pattern of behaviour – if there have been more than one – and point to an underlying condition.

[Rights Fighter]

I believe that appeals in these kind of cases in Scotland have a time limit to be made.

Appeals can be made out of time providing there is good enough reason to do so.

[Izzy]

Change to rape law rejected..

http://www.scotsman.com/news/change-...dges-1-2791858

Am really suprised to be honest, I don't know much about the case but if I was sitting on a jury I would want to know that the complainer had made
a false accusation, even if it was against someone else.

Lord Carloway, the Lord Justice-Clerk, sitting with Lords Clarke, Menzies and Brodie, and Lady Cosgrove, said: “What is sought to be admitted here is evidence that, at least on one view, has no direct or indirect connection with the facts in issue, but may conceivably affect the weight to be attached to testimony which does have direct relevance to the facts. ..it is evidence of ‘bad character’ with the purpose of undermining the complainer’s credibility

[lawlessone2009]

I'll sit on the fence on this one...

I would say that if the prosecution are able and allowed to put 'previous convictions' forward then the defence should be able and allowed to put previous allegations forward.

Scotland is a strange place to go to court!

I don't believe things are going in the correct direction yet with regards courts and WHAT is put on trial. The jury are there to consider the facts of the allegation not pick apart peoples previous lives.

Where does it all stop? Will a prosecutor be delving into school records and looking for notes on the accused touching a girls bum or the defence team delving into the same records looking for that time when the accuser was found to tell a lie???

I don't quite feel the achievements will be quite as we imagine them as they never are! Swings and roundabouts.


History IS important but it could well cloud the entire legal process if it's not kept in check. This news article sounds positive but 'be careful what you wish for'.