my 16 year old son falsely accused of rape by a woman of 40

[landlady]

hi everyone, we were adjourned!!!!

we went into court, this time my son was locked in a glass dock his personal stuff taken from him and a guard stood by him after locking the door......

this in itself i think was disgusting!!!! he's a boy with no previous convictions or cautions what the hell happened to his rights!!! what happened to being inocent until proven guilty, they treated him like a thug!!!

when it all started, the 'new' barrister acting for cps asked straight away for an adjourment as the police officers on the case were not there to put their side of the evidence for abuse of process forward!!!

the judge was not amused and asked, no told her to get a senior officer there later in the afternoon. the cps said the senior officer was on a course!!!

our barrister said he was happy to carry on but the judge was not!!

we waited outside and noticed both our barrister and cps barrister go into a room. he then came to us and told us they had convinced the judge to adjourn but it was to the 31st of march!!!

he reasured us he was more than happy to get rid of this judge as he said he would hear everything about the abuse of process then say " so what?? we are going to trial anyway".

he also said he wants to get this sergent carver in the dock to answer to why he is now saying he did not tell us there would be NFA against my son!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

so thats about it, we wait for another month, to have to then beat it out with the police as to how we ahve been wrongly done by with their incompitance, and hopefully done infront of another judge.

my son does not understand any of this and looks to us for reasurance, i only hope this is all for him and not against resulting in a trial date!!

[witsend]

Landlady
I have come to the conclusion your son, and yourselves, are being treated like s---! Incompetent police, diabolical judge, so much for the justice system, they should hang their heads in shame

[Saffron]

This is ridiculous!
I can only hope that the longer it drags on the more likely it is to be thrown out due to Abuse of Process.
Thinking of you.

[goldfish]

I agree, I thinks it's terrible that you can all be left in this state of limbo yet again. I can only sympathise with your situation.

In my husbands case the last two hearings were due to the prosecution wanting more time. Our minds were in turmoil waiting for a decision which finally came between hearings.

Surely this can only work in your favour even if it does go to trial. Try to stay positive.

[RFLH]

I am so sorry to hear that you have been so shoddily treated by incompetent plods - and thats the clean version of it ....

[friday]

Hi Verity, I just wanted to clear up a couple of things I am not sure I understood correctly as I worry that it could mislead/confuse other people who should stumble accross this thread looking for answers (it may just be me!).

I believe the reason he can not be tried as a minor is because anyone over the age of 10 has criminal responsibility and I may be wrong but I believe rape cases are always heard at crown court because of the seriousness of the crime. http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/i...ates/youth.htm

The woman who accussed Landlady's son is a disgusting excuse for a human but I don't see how it can be claimed she raped him (unless you are talking about emotionally). He was over 16, she wasn't in a position of trust (according to legal definitions), it was consensual and he doesn't lack the capacity to consent. Could you clarify what you meant for me?

Sorry if it seems like I am nit-picking but I just like to understand what people mean or I get very muddled!


Landlady: it sounds like you have been through hell recently and your poor soon must be terrified. I would argue that the glass box and guard are for his protection as she is obviously highly dangerous (even if not violent)! I shouldn't joke, but sometimes it is the only way to get through times like these. I hope that this all works out for you and your son. I wish I could help, you are both in my thoughts.

[Saffron]

Just to note, Friday is absolutely right that the glass box and guard are there for his protection. Hearings and trials of this nature are highly emotive and as such the defendant has to be protected.

Unfortunately the glass box and guard gives an automatic inference of guilt. In the same way, the witness behind the screen has automatic "victim" status. The jurors' sympathy is loaded against the defendant from the outset.

When we attended R's trial he was also put in a glass box with a guard. We were not allowed to take in a plastic bottle of water - it could have been used as a projectile weapon, apparently. Mind you, given the way "her" two supporters behaved - shouting out, swearing and shaking their heads at whatever the defence barrister said; nodding furiously at everything the CPS barrister said - I could quite cheerfully have clobbered them over the head with a bottle of water! So I suppose it's best I didn't have one.

Interestingly, when the jury announced that they had reached a decision (after a taxing and clearly very responsible 45-minute deliberation) the guard in the glass box with R turned to him and said "I reckon you'll be alright mate."
hmm....how wrong could he have been?!

[Rights Fighter]

It is correct that all rape cases are now heard at CC regardless of age. I think the Bulger killers were tried in CC and there was a bit of a stink about that at the time. To be honest I think that that is exactly the place they should be tried. These are "grown up" offences and should therefore take place in "grown up" places.

A few years back I was asked for help by parents of a 14 year old who was accused of the rape of two boys under the age of 7 years and he was tried in CC.

[Verity]

SOA 2003 ss.16-24.

I have gone back to the SOA 2003 and had a look at the thread: Consent of a minor.

RF Highlighted the confusion the act has caused.

RF, Could you have a look in Archbold and have a gooky peep at:

SOA 2003 ss.16-24.

The act has been written presuming it is only a male who would commit such an offence contrary to this section, so where you read HE change the gender to SHE.
A in this case was not in a position of trust as far as B was concerned.
Thus I have bracketed those paragraphs.

Bear in mind B was a virgin and this was his first sexual encounter and it could be argued that his total sexual inexperience in the presence of a 40 year old sexually experienced and mature female would have been apparent.

Male virgins are not confident and it could be argued would have followed the guidance and encouragement of the more sexually experienced partner.

Consider also the witness statements as to what A said in the pub prior to her leaving.

A = 40 year old female at time of alleged offence
B = 16 year old male at time of alleged offence

A has accused B of rape

Now read the act:


Abuse of position of trust: sexual activity with a child E+W+N.I.
(1)A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual,

(c)A is in a position of trust in relation to B,
(d)where subsection (2) applies, A knows or could reasonably be expected to know of the circumstances by virtue of which he is in a position of trust in relation to B,

and

(e)either—
(i)B is under 18 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or

(ii)B is under 13.

(2)This subsection applies where A—

(a)is in a position of trust in relation to B by virtue of circumstances within section 21(2), (3), (4) or (5), and

(b)is not in such a position of trust by virtue of other circumstances.

(3)Where in proceedings for an offence under this section it is proved that the other person was under 18, the defendant is to be taken not to have reasonably believed that that person was 18 or over unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he reasonably believed it.

(4)Where in proceedings for an offence under this section—

(a)it is proved that the defendant was in a position of trust in relation to the other person by virtue of circumstances within section 21(2), (3), (4) or (5), and

(b)it is not proved that he was in such a position of trust by virtue of other circumstances,
it is to be taken that the defendant knew or could reasonably have been expected to know of the circumstances by virtue of which he was in such a position of trust unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he knew or could reasonably have been expected to know of those circumstances.

(5)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.

[Rights Fighter]

In this case the defendant is the lad not the 40 year old woman who should have known better.

In the unlikely event she is prosecuted for "perverting the course of justice" I would hope that the Crown would also attempt to have her for having USI with a minor - but as he was 16 at the time that is unlikely.

She's a sad excuse for an "older woman".

When I was into my 40's I attracted the attention of a 19 year old and later a 23 year old - both I am sure were virgins who wanted to lose their respective cherries to an "older woman".

Neither were shy and retiring but just wanted the experience - they didn't get it by the way - I am not interested in young men and prefer my own age group.

I honestly can't see the attraction of having sex with somebody young enough to be my son....

[landlady]

hi everyone long time no see,
i'm sorry i'v not posted for so long after you were al so kind in helping and supporting me.
the court case for abuse of process finally got underway yesterday after 4 adjournments due to police not turning up.
i tell you with eavy heart that the abuse of process against my son failed!!!
my son must stand full trial for rape in august.......

the judge admitted that my son had been treated terribly at the hands of the police and cps but after reading lots of stuff which i did not understand from law books he said the trial will have to stand.

might i just tell you that the judge was very sympathetic towards my son to the point where he asked their cps barrister to take time out to ask the police to reconsider and to drop the charges or go to the complainant and ask her to!!!!!!!

he fully believes that the cps have made a wrong judgement in getting this case to court. might i also add that the cps barrister wants nothing to do with it either, he's the second one to say this!!!!

now i have to prepare my son for this joke of a trial that no one wants to make a decision on because they all know is a load of rubbish.

we were given this womans medical records which reveal not only is she bi polar with mental problems that had her a stay in the loony bin but also that she is an alcoholic!!! an alcoholic that claims she was incapable drunk on just four and a half glasses of wine!!!

i pray that the jury see through this disgrace of a woman and free my son from this terrible burden on his shoulders.

please can i ask anyone that could help me with preparing my son for the worst possible outcome to contact me. he's now 18.

this woman's accusation has stoll my sons early years of becoming a lovely young man, i pray to god that she doesn't take his freedom and ruin his life with her disgusting lies.

[quinnb]

After reading all of this I have utmost sympathy for your son. But however u slightly annoy me. Firstly just cuz she is bi polar and as u put it been in s looney bin does not automatically mean she is in capable of being raped. In fact she is prob more likely. And as for the amount of wine she consumed and her state afterwards I would say is a matter for the jury to decide. Now my false accuser shared similar traits to your sons and I said the same about her, nutter etc but that does not make it right.

[landlady]

After reading all of this I have utmost sympathy for your son. But however u slightly annoy me. Firstly just cuz she is bi polar and as u put it been in s looney bin does not automatically mean she is in capable of being raped. In fact she is prob more likely. And as for the amount of wine she consumed and her state afterwards I would say is a matter for the jury to decide. Now my false accuser shared similar traits to your sons and I said the same about her, nutter etc but that does not make it right.

might i just say i was meerly QUOTING what the medical records of this woman show. please do not insult my intelegence as to believe i do not fully understand that her condition makes her more vunerable, but that vunerability my be taken for granted by someone that knows her or by a more worldly wise person NOT a 16 year old boy that has had no other sexual experience!!!!

and being a landlady of a drinking house for over 20 years, trust me i know when someone is incapable drunk i don't need any jury in this land to tell me!!!

i would appreciate it if you could maybe offer constructive help or just non at all!!

can i point out to anyone else reading my posts that i have friends and family that suffer bi polar disorder, they don't risk making their condition worse by drinking copius amounts of alcohol and risk putting their lives at risk.

no body deserves to be raped no matter what their mental state may be. i'm just very angry this woman has put our family through terrible pain whilst she continues her reckless life regardless of others.

[landlady]

After reading all of this I have utmost sympathy for your son. But however u slightly annoy me. Firstly just cuz she is bi polar and as u put it been in s looney bin does not automatically mean she is in capable of being raped. In fact she is prob more likely. And as for the amount of wine she consumed and her state afterwards I would say is a matter for the jury to decide. Now my false accuser shared similar traits to your sons and I said the same about her, nutter etc but that does not make it right.

curiosity got the beter of me and i decided to check you out!!

after all you have been through i fuly understand your bitterness. however i would have thought you might have a little respect and understanding as to how anger that i so do feel towards this woman might be portrayed as not caring about her.

you so rightly say that her mental condition does not mean she can't possibly be raped, but neither does it mean she can take advantage of a minor and then cry rape.

[largactyl1]

Hi Landlady, I am so sorry to hear that this farce is going to full trial. It really does sound as if anyone in the legal profession who knows anything at all thinks that the whole thing is a total joke. You say 2 barristers for prosecution have stepped aside?

Well, my knowledge of the law is limited. The main thing I do know about is severe mental health problems - I can maybe help with any points you are not clear on with the mental illness side of things. Please do PM me if you want, or leave a question here

Tony's accuser had a personality disorder and was a hopeless alcoholic.

Kind regards to you, and bestwishes also

Jen x