Victims should have their say in a trial

[Saffron]

Thank you Ashley, for articulating the horror of your ordeal. It is strangely comforting to know that there are people out there who understand what it is like.
There can be no joy in finally proving that you are innocent of what you were originally accused of. For myself and my husband it would probably cause only more rage that such an injustice was allowed to happen in the first place. It sounds melodramatic, but our lives will never be the same again.
It sounds as though you have some extremely loyal friends around you - we too have been extremely lucky to have a wonderful support network.

I sincerely wish you all the best, and can only thank you for your honesty.

[raincloud]

I think the replies that have followed my post give out the message load and clear. Ashley, I wish you all the luck in the world. Be strong! Everyone else, I'm so glad that people finally do understand what it is like.

Something MUST be done to stop false accusations, facial trials akin to a kangaroo court, and innocent men losing their liberty on the single word of an unhinged woman.

Baz63 - you work in law. Surely the suffering of the falsely accused is as important as the suffering of a genuine rape victim?? Tell me - why does the law allow this to happen?


Just as an update, my husband and I have now split up. This is off the back of his acquittal last year, for an alleged attack that never took place, his deep rooted terror and depression, his PTSD, his subsequent nervous breakdown. What hope did our 3 week old marriage have when this accusation came to light? NONE.

Yet another statistic for the record books. Yet another destroyed family. How many more people have to go through this before something is done??

[Ashley]

I have just come back from my session with the psychiatrist, your comments to my post have been more of a tonic.

I look forward to future debate on this thorny subject, if my comments help others then it is a bonus. It is great therapy for me to read yours, they let me know that my feelings are not unmanly or abnormal. Thank you all.

[friday]

The 'survivor' has a victim support case worker, a police liaison officer, CPS case worker, Junior Counsel and a QC to lead the evidence. The survivor is protected by law from admitting previous sexual history as evidence, except in exceptional cicumstances. They are protected in law from having their identity known regardless of the outcome of the trial. Additionally in such cases they will almost certainly have the symapthy of the jury even though the judge will give a warning. Their case is brought at public expense.

Apart from having his/her solicitor and Counsel and a judicial warning that the prosecution must prove their case beyond reasonable doubt ( which simply is no longer true), the defendant, in my view, is not as protected as suggested.

hi ashley, it seems i havent quite had all those things a victim is supposed to have and i do believe the defendent gets the easy ride in comparison.

sexual history is only allowed to be brought up when there is an issue of consent, which is almost always. and in 50% of cases the defence asks permission to bring up past sexual history and in 3/4 of those times it is granted. despite having been a virgin prior to being raped his barrister "suggested" i set out with the intention of having sex and enjoyed being raped and had an orgasm. what evidence was there for that?

in my case i had a DC, a SOIT officer and obviously a barrister. i didnt get to speak to my barrister before or during the trial, only after to apologise for the way the defence barrister had treated me. i wasnt able to talk to the DC who had helped me through the case since he was giving evidence so i could only speak to the SOIT officer throughout the trial.

my trial lasted a week. i was on the stand for 3 days. they used my mental health history to try say i was delusional and rather than getting an expert, as the defence would have been allowed to call he just quoted the dsm-iv, which does not explain my illness, only the diagnostic criteria, all of which are not necessary for a diagnosis. he also neglected to take into account that bipolar disorder is episodic, i was not manic at the time of the rape and therefore would not have been delusional, nor would i have had a mood swing so quickly as to go from being happy to have sex to angry and upset.

i am also not allowed to call witnesses although the defence can. he can then use semantic to try "prove" his case e.g i said to a stranger on the street who had asked me if i was ok because i was shouting and crying, that "i had had sex with a man". of course at that point, and for many months later i couldnt say the word rape. now this man understood that a man had hurt me since i was very distressed and said "i hate *name*". but since i didnt say the word rape they assume consent. the same applies with a nurse who i said "at first i was ok with stuff and then i wasnt" ie i was ok with kissing but not sex, they assumed that meant i had changed my mind during sex.

the worst thing was when they took my mumblings on the video statement out of context. i said "he tried to make me give him a blow job and i pushed my head up so i thought he understood i didnt want to and then i was like...um...yeah....ok...." they neglected to include the next part of my statement which was "it was still ok to be there with him cos i thought he got the message".

see how clever editing changes everything?

and reasonable doubt? supposedly you can mistake crying for an orgasm and just ignore when someone is saying "get off".

i think we all just must have drawn the short straws with the legal system.

[Rights Fighter]

You the complainant could not call your own witnesses? I've never heard that one before. Of course you could have called your own witnesses such as the guy who found you in a state. And you should have been introduced to the barrister prior to trial. Something does not sound quite right to me.

[friday]

nope, i couldnt call witnesses cos i am just a witness, nothing more. and since he doesnt reject anything the witnesses said, he can do that even though i know that on the stand it would be apparent his barrister was just twisting the witnesses choice of words.

yeah the court majorly ****ed up. his barrister was a prick he knew i cant say the words for parts of the body and sex acts and that was why my video statement was used (i was in court 10 mins before the judge said we had to find another way to do it cos i was a wreck). i happened to be in a 2 week gap between a pilot study of using the videos and the law being passed which meant the judge had to write to the minister for justice and if it had been rejected he would have been let free cos i couldnt have got up on the stand and done it all (i was only cross-examined). his barrister intentional made me a wreck. he did get told off by the judge though. she stopped the trial and pulled him up on a few points which meant that after his barrister said it was his final question and i was free to go i then had to go back in making me even more of a mess.

not sure if you know the answer but is the jury allowed to know he skipped bail and was caught using someone else's name? that he has routinely broken his bail conditions? and that when they arrested him and his family all denied knowing anyone by that name and they only caught him beccause of his tattoo? he also lied about his name to me (which is obvious in court by the fact i refer to him by a different name). i just think he must have had an amazing barrister. either that or a jury of people who wanted to get home asap.

his barrister also dragged my cross-examination out for 3 days meaning the jury went to make their decision at lunchtime on friday which i believe was the reason it was a hung jury since i doubt they wanted it to carry over to the next week.

yeah cos my barrister was just appointed by the cps i never spoke to him.

[frankgallagherwasere]

I know thi post is old BUT I think many would sympathise with Friday yet many falsely accused could not say the same. Many of use have our trials rushed through as if the world was to end tomorrow and questioning is a pittyful excuse to waste some time before being convicted.

Sexual acts are sometimes hard I know to qualify whether right or wrong, but from my experience I cant imagine anyone losing a case, Id be amazed gobsmacked and well mistified. All the crown want are convictions, if only for the extra bonus they collect, and one could hardly say the CPS want to lose a case not with the cheating that goes on.

SO I think Friday you were seriously unlucky and it certainly wasnt a typical case that many of use who have experienced trials first hand could relate too, if only !! Im sure there are many true victims of crime let down by the system as there are of those falsely accused, meaning the true criminals are the ones who escape !!

[friday]

with a 5% conviction rate my case was not unusual at all. 30% of cases that go to court result in a conviction but very few of these are aquantaince rapes (where the issue is consent) even if 10% of the accussed in court were falsely accussed (and i doubt its anywhere near that high) that still leaves 60% of guilty men walking free (if all the falsely accused were found guilty).

i had two court cases (trial and retrial) and both were the same. i just dont believe the jury can be expected to take all the information in, understand which information is reliable and reach a verdict when they are not aware of things such as the defences right not to call prosecution witnesses (although obviously their statements must be read), the fact prosecution can not say things about the defendents illegal behaviour. if the jury are in anyway prejudice with regards to race, disability etc then this can influence the verdict.

i'm not sure how the system could be improved, but i hope it can and will.

[Rights Fighter]

I think that these should be taken away from targets so that police can investigate properly.

I also think that juries should not try these cases and that a panel of experts should appear for both sides, and a panel of three judges should have preside rather than one.

Not enough guilty people are being successfully prosecuted and too many innocent people are being sent to prison. The current system does not work - that has been proved.