Woman in wales jailed for false allegations?

[worriedfather]

There was a report on the BBC website that a woman in wales had been jailed for 8 months for false allegations of rape. Apparently she accused her ex husband of 6 counts of rape in nov last year, then withdrew the allegation in jan whilst insisting that they were true, she then told police that the allegations were false in feb, then said that the allegation that the allegation was false was false and the allegations were true.
Police appear to be prosecuting the ex husband as well.
Womens groups are outraged and are saying that this will not increase the number of rape convictions. They say that only 6% of reported rapes end in conviction.. where does that number come from?

[LS]

As this woman's group would, in other circumstances, be called a "quango" I'm not sure I can attach any belief to much that she spouts, particularly when she seems totally unaware that if you make an accusation, then withdraw it, then reinstate it, no one knows which one is the truth, and that a prosecution for wasting police time/PCJ is inevitable and shouldn't come as a surprise.

I would say the same ignorance is probably responsible for quoting and picking the figure of 6%, which is probably an urban myth. People keep quoting it, and sooner or later others start believing and quoting it too.

If these pressure groups really want to improve the conviction rates then they should lobby parliament to do away with juries and then have judges instructed to pronounce anyone charged with rape as guilty.
Then they'll have their 100% "conviction rate" and all will be fine and dandy in their world.

[LS]

I know we shouldn't do averages, but on the bottom of that bbc page is another article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11199939 which gives the rape conviction figure for 2009-2010 in Wales as 59.3%.

Now, if one takes Wales as representative (average) for the rest of the country, then that's a big difference from the 6% people like to quote without any proof...

[worriedfather]

Strangely enough, the Judge did everything short of directing the jury to convict, Very biased summimg up, even suggested things that the Prosecution had never mentioned. Judge suggested that my son had raped the girl using a condom and she might have forgotten, this had never been suggested by CPS as she always denied him using a condom

[Saffron]

As we all know, our "justice" system is riddled with injustices. This case sounds extremely complex, and I am rather bemused by it, quite honestly. As far as I understand it, this is what happened:

* The woman reported to Plod that her husband had repeatedly raped her. However, she and her husband continued to have a consensual sexual relationship after she made the rape allegations.
* She reported it to the police; her husband was arrested and charged.
* She then told them that she did not want to pursue the case.
* The police informed her that they would pursue it regardless of whether she would give testimony or not (this happens more and more often - the video evidence of the initial interview with the accuser is deemed sufficient)
* She then told the police that she had fabricated the allegations.
* As far as I am aware, her husband stood trial (during which she did not give evidence) and he was found Not Guilty. If I am incorrect, please put me right!
* She then went back to plod and claimed that her retraction was false and had been made under duress (her husband and his sister had persuaded her to retract) but the rape reports had been genuine.

Therefore, in the eyes of the law, she had perverted the course of justice by refusing to testify against her husband.

That is my understanding. Not sure whether I have got all of the above right, so anyone, please feel free to correct me!

Either way, if what I have written above is correct, it seems an odd decision for the CPS to have made. They always claim that rape allegations should be reported, but the decision as to whether they proceed to charges (providing the CPS thinks there is a realistic chance of conviction) is always left to the victim.

So, it seems weird to me.

[Rights Fighter]

She was convicted and sentenced on the basis of making a false retraction - not a false allegation of rape. She is now appealing the sentence.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/08/rape-case-woman-appeal

[LS]

Anyhoo, "appeal's just been thrown out" but is going to Appeal Court???? (That's what it says!)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11744469

Curiously it also says she admitted PCJ, which was why she was jailed. There are bits of this case which seem to change daily.

[Rights Fighter]

She tried to persuade the trial judge to give permission (issue a certificate) and failed, by the looks of it so it will now go to London CA.

[friday]

it is certainly an odd case. i can completely understand how a real victim could end up in this situation but if it isn't true then of cause she should be prosecuted. i know that i very nearly didn't go through with court and if i either than man who raped me or his family had tried to persuade me to retract my statement i would have been so scared i would have done it but then my conscience would tell me it was my duty to protect others from him so i would have reinstated it....you get the picture.

but then she did pervert the course of justice and waste resources....

LS: i believe that figure (roughly 60%) is once it reaches crown court so 6% would be the number of reported rapes that result in conviction.

[LS]

I'm not sure on that, Friday. I have to say I'm a bit confused. I re-read the BBC report and it clearly shows that of the number of bodies who go to Crown Court almost 60% of them get convicted.
But as you say, that's only the number who've gone as far as a crown court, which no one's saying what percentage of reported rapes that is.

However, just using Wales as an example, and also that article, there is the mention that in the current year there were 1,586 unsolved or "undetected" rapes out of 2,983, which amounts to 50-something percent.
So, on that basis there are nearly 3,000 rapes, of which 1,500 are either unsolved or don't go to court. And of those that do, 60% get convicted.
With my feeble maths 60% of 1,500 is just 30% of the 3,000 total, so I don't know where this 6% keeps coming from.

Even with Wales being the example, in their own figures they've had 3000 rapes, 1500 weren't proceeded with for whatever reason, but the other 1400 were.
Of course we'll never know how many rapes never get reported, but to say that only 6% get convicted is not borne out by the figures.

[friday]

unless the 6% figure includes rapes reported to people like rape crisis that don't get passed on to police? or even just surveys. 6% doesn't sound at all wrong if it includes all rapes including those that never get reported but as you say the numbers don't add up if it is only reported rapes. who knows.

[gareth589]

I wont pass my comment on this area, I think they should be hung and strung.