Just to underline what Wakingnightmare has said, there would be nothing malicious in the police's actions; if you bring fresh evidence forward, they will be duty bound to re-interview the accuser about this; in the same way as if the accuser made fresh allegations against you, they would be duty bound to re-interview you to give you the opportunity to rebut these.
Where the system does fall down of course is that they start from the premise of believing the accuser's statement and disbelieving the defendant's....
Just to put a contrarian viewpoint, if the case got as far as trial, any such evidence should be put in the defence case statement which the prosecution will view in advance of proceedings anyway, if it isn't and an ambush is sprung during the trial this might invite criticism from the judge.
It's a personal judgement call really, and if you have concrete evidence it may be sensible to discuss your course of action with a solicitor (if she kept in contact with you post-allegation this is significant, but if it is just changed sexual behaviour on her part with third parties the prosecution may well explain this away as being a reaction to the resultant stress)
Where the system does fall down of course is that they start from the premise of believing the accuser's statement and disbelieving the defendant's....
Just to put a contrarian viewpoint, if the case got as far as trial, any such evidence should be put in the defence case statement which the prosecution will view in advance of proceedings anyway, if it isn't and an ambush is sprung during the trial this might invite criticism from the judge.
It's a personal judgement call really, and if you have concrete evidence it may be sensible to discuss your course of action with a solicitor (if she kept in contact with you post-allegation this is significant, but if it is just changed sexual behaviour on her part with third parties the prosecution may well explain this away as being a reaction to the resultant stress)
Comment