False allegations affect people in all walks of life, in personal or professional contexts, and often without any forewarning. False allegations can affect anyone in society: in their workplace and in their personal lives.
The impact of false allegations can be devastating and may include reputational loss, family breakdown, police and social services involvement, criminal prosecution and wrongful imprisonment.
Following the Jimmy Savile scandal, it is easier than ever to make a false allegation. Alison Saunders, formerly the Director of Public Prosecutions, claimed in interview on Radio 4’s Today programme (17 January 2018) that she ‘does not think’ that there are innocent people in prison.
That statement is erroneous. There are many innocent people in prison. The falsely accused are disadvantaged at every level of the Criminal Justice System.
As Dr Michael Naughton, points out (Memory and Injustice, pp. 207 – 209):
From a position of questioning the veracity of allegations as a safeguard to protecting potentially innocent individuals from false allegations and wrongful convictions, the default position now is to believe alleged victims; moreover, to see complainants as victims at the point of the complaint, unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary.
‘The College of Policing, the body which sets standards and guidance for police in England and Wales, emphasised that’:
When an allegation is received, police should (now) believe this account and record it as a crime.
False allegations may be malicious or motivated by revenge or the desire to seek compensation. They can occur in contested child family court proceedings and/or in the context of an acrimonious divorce. Other accusers may be motivated by the potential of monetary gain in civil lawsuits or through lodging an application with the Criminal Compensation Authority. There maybe an overlap in some cases with each of these elements.
Some people with poor mental health may sincerely believe the allegations are true even when the evidence shows that they are untrue.
The right to remain silent during police interview was removed in 1994 as was the mandatory corroboration warning in rape cases. The Criminal Justice and Police Act (2003) allowed police officers to sit on juries.
This has been compounded by legal aid cuts to the point that many accused persons cannot afford a solicitor. This in turn has resulted in a huge increase in the number of Litigants in Person. The bar to conviction in the contemporary climate is very low.
Case Study: Liam Allen
Liam Allen, a criminology student, was falsely accused of 12 counts of rape and sexual assault. His case collapsed in 2017. Following criticism from the trial judge, Scotland Yard and the CPS undertook an urgent review of the case which was halted mid-trial after it was disclosed that police had withheld key evidence. The Metropolitan Police Service later issued an unreserved apology.
Allen had spent almost 2 years on police bail before the case was halted in Croyden Crown Court. His legal team had advised that he faced a minimum of 12 years in prison if convicted. Police withheld a series of graphic text massages written by the complainant which completely undermined the case set out by the Crown. In total, police had downloaded around 40,000 text and social media messages which were saved on a disc but not disclosed to the defence. In one text message, she described being aroused by scenes of rape. In a press interview outside of court Allan commented: “I can’t explain the mental torture of the last two years. I feel betrayed by the system which I believed would do the right thing – the system I want to work in. It’s something I will never be able to forgive of forget.”
Police and prosecutors were at a loss to explain why the text messages had not been disclosed to the defence prior to trial. Shailesh Vara a former justice minister commented: “What has happened in this case is simply unacceptable. There needs to be a thorough investigation, led from the top, by both the CPS and the police to put in place measures to ensure this does not happen again.”
Anyone familiar with the criminal courts in the United Kingdom will not be surprised by Mr Allen’s case which may be the tip of a very large iceberg. It is now more difficult than ever to receive a fair trial in court. Joanna Williams, author of Women v Feminism has warned against what she has termed as ‘rape lynch mob culture.’ Williams, writing in the Daily Mail, stated tellingly: “Increasingly, from the moment an allegation of rape is made, the police and judiciary tend to use language that implies it is based on fact and that all men are potential predators of women.”
This is most apparent from the outset of the investigation when complainants are called ‘victims’ and are treated very differently to the accused. The police and courts moreover appear largely oblivious to the fact that some complainants may not be telling the truth. They are even more oblivious to mental health problems and fantasy-prone accusers some of whom may well believe the narrative of alleged events reported to police.
It is increasingly more difficult for the falsely accused to get a fair trial. The whole atmosphere in court works against the accused. Contrast Special Measures, where the complainant can give evidence by video link or from behind a curtain, with the glass dock where the defendant stands, marginalised and accompanied by a prison guard. Barrister, Matthew Scott has previously argued that most civilized countries have abandoned this practice, and it is now about time that this country did so.
The prosecuting barrister, Jerry Hayes made a clarion call about the case against Allen: “I told the judge that this was the most appalling failure of disclosure that I have ever encountered. A very serious miscarriage of justice was averted.” If convicted, Allen would have been placed on the sex offender’s register indefinitely. His life and reputation in tatters.
