Question

[Tony1]

Can the charge against someone be different to the allegation stated at interview stage?

Thanks

[Kjg]

It's the cps who make that choice I think it's not the police I may be wrong but I am sure charge can be changed and often is,they will only charge you with what they think they will get a conviction for

[Tony1]

Thanks -

Could the allegation be sexual assault and then charged with rape?
Or would they have to make it clear during interview stage?

[Kjg]

Generally your be aware of what the allegation is before interview if you have a sol as they would of been given disclosure before you were interviewed
It's like questioning about a robbery with no mention of a gun and then charging you with armed robbery I don't think they can do that

[Tony1]

Thanks - that makes sense.

[AmandaF]

Slightly different scenario, but I was originally charged with threatening and abusive behaviour which somehow morphed into attempting to pervert the course of justice. But hey ho that's Scotland for you- I swear they make it up as they go along

[Tony1]

My concern is that the police might not give full disclosure about the (false) allegation to the solicitor.
They might arrest someone and question them about one thing and then charge with another.

[AmandaF]

Sorry I tend to rant on these posts so apologies if it's not relevant! I was never ever questioned about what I had allegedly done, the police using the excuse that they had enough evidence to charge, which later became that they needed to release me from custody as I was in such a poor psychological state (but the onus was on me to request medical attention) .
In my partner's case all the allegations were brought by an adult after he claimed disclosures were made to him by 6 kids (they weren't) one of the allegations being dropped before charge as on GIT interview the boy said nothing had happened to him. However instead of ringing alarm bells the case went on to trial and he was wrongly convicted. Me? I walked free as it was obvious the same complainants were lying.
The point I'm making is that in my experience, nothing is investigated thoroughly- it's all driven by looking to be public heroes in what are now fashionable sexual assault cases.

Cynical? Bitter? Me? Nooooooo!!!!!!!!

[Rights Fighter]

The answer is "yes". People are interviewed and asked questions about specific things (usually) and those can change throughout the course of the investigation (when complainants "remember" something else or "got it wrong" the first time").

A case I recently dealt with, in a pre ABE interview "chat" with the police, the complainant claimed she had been raped (under age 10) in one venue. When she got to the ABE interview she had forgotten she told the police that, as she went on to alleged a rape around 15 years later, a hundred miles away, which is supposed to have taken her virginity.

When questioned about that discrepancy in the ABE, she realised her mistake and pretended that it was "a mistake". How anyone can make such a mistake is beyond my comprehension.

I've often spoken on here about a trial some years back, where the complainant had only mentioned alleged indecent assaults in her ABE. First day of trial her best mate "reminded" her that she (the complainant) had been raped as well. The trial was stopped so she could be ABE interviewed on that matter. As she had had a medical exam which found her to be a virgin, she said it went in half a centimeter. He got 12 years for that "forgotten" rape.

It's unbelievable how these things can happen. Often the police don't believe these changes of evidence but they still have to proceed with them regardless. It comes as no surprise then, when a real victim walks into the police station and the thought is "oh here we go, another false accuser".

The damage these liars do to genuine victims is awful.

[frightened spouse]

My concern is that the police might not give full disclosure about the (false) allegation to the solicitor.
They might arrest someone and question them about one thing and then charge with another.

Hi Tony

I know it's easy for me to say this, but try not to overthink what your fa could have claimed. It is impossible to second guess lies that have been told as they are not based in reality. Unless you are charged, you will not know what she said in any great detail.

If you write down as detailed an account as you can manage of the events as they actually happened, this will stand you in good stead if needed later. I would imagine this has been mentioned before but do not share this with police as they may allow the accuser to change her story.

Dealing with the uncertainty and unknowns is very hard.

Best wishes

[Rights Fighter]

if the allegations change during the course of the "investigation" these should be recorded in the "CRIS" report - this is the continuous record investigation sheet". Everything step the police take should be recorded in that.

If you are charged then your sol should obtain the whole of the CRIS report and that should show up any (or most) discrepancies

[Tony1]

Hi Tony

I know it's easy for me to say this, but try not to overthink what your fa could have claimed. It is impossible to second guess lies that have been told as they are not based in reality. Unless you are charged, you will not know what she said in any great detail.

If you write down as detailed an account as you can manage of the events as they actually happened, this will stand you in good stead if needed later. I would imagine this has been mentioned before but do not share this with police as they may allow the accuser to change her story.

Dealing with the uncertainty and unknowns is very hard.

Best wishes

I appreciate your response - let's say the allegation is made - the accused is interviewed - would the full extent of the allegation need to be detailed in the interview?
Or could that be withheld ?

Hope what I'm asking makes sense

[frightened spouse]

Hi Tony

Every case is different, ie. in some cases of historic allegations the dates can be expanded massively to suit the complainants story. But if the allegation against you is regarding a single night then there is less scope for details to change.

The main points of the allegation were put to you during the interview, however as RF ( who has a zillion times more knowledge and experience than me) has already stated details can be changed at any stage.

In cases such as these the defence aim is to damage the credibility of the false accuser , this is often through exposing falsehoods in details that you may not be aware of prior to charge as you will not see the statement she has made.

It is torture waiting for the cps decision but as we are now in June I hope you get the right outcome very soon.

[Casehardened]

Hi Tony,

This is not is answering your actual question but a is more general reply on the theme.

If the complainant suddenly thinks she was actually raped rather than merely assaulted she would presumably notify the police about this (otherwise the CPS would not be made aware to alter the charges)

The usual procedure would be for the police to formally reinterview the complainant and then reinterview the accused regarding these new allegations.

I would hope that the police would not hold back disclosure about a serious allegation throughout the interview though it is an accepted technique to keep some cards back during the first part to try to trap the interviewee into denying something about which there is incontrovertible proof.

RF has already detailed the scenario for if the complainant discloses the rape allegation during trial.

[Tony1]

Hi Tony,

This is not is answering your actual question but a is more general reply on the theme.

If the complainant suddenly thinks she was actually raped rather than merely assaulted she would presumably notify the police about this (otherwise the CPS would not be made aware to alter the charges)

The usual procedure would be for the police to formally reinterview the complainant and then reinterview the accused regarding these new allegations.

I would hope that the police would not hold back disclosure about a serious allegation throughout the interview though it is an accepted technique to keep some cards back during the first part to try to trap the interviewee into denying something about which there is incontrovertible proof.

RF has already detailed the scenario for if the complainant discloses the rape allegation during trial.

Thanks - sorry for so many counter questions.

Although the allegation was SA during the interview they tried to allude to something more serious .

Just trying to carry on withi life but not easy.