The falsely accused can never get their lives back

False accusers are handsomely compensated but their victims get nothing.

Simon Warr

Share
Topics Politics UK

Danny Kay is a man entitled to be very, very angry. Mr Kay is the victim of a wrongful conviction. He was charged with raping a woman with whom he had had a brief sexual relationship. He was duly convicted in 2013 and was sentenced to four-and-a-half years in prison, serving two years, and was placed on the Sex Offenders Register for life. Although he always maintained his innocence, his life has been permanently blighted.

However, he didn’t give up the fight to clear his name and, with the assistance of his sister-in-law, he was able to produce evidence of electronic communications between himself and his accuser that undermined her claims that she had been raped. It was even established that she had edited records of her contact with him.

Of course, the detectives who dealt with the allegations against Mr Kay could have found this vital evidence in a matter of minutes – that is how long it took his sister-in-law to unearth the archived messages via his Facebook account. But the police officers didn’t seem to bother trying to verify whether or not the accuser was telling the truth – they just presumed she was. At the time of Mr Kay’s trial, the jury did not see the full, unedited messages and nor did it hear that the complainant had deliberately manipulated the evidence by deleting key sections.

Based on the new evidence, Mr Kay’s case went to the Court of Appeal where, in December 2017, his conviction was quashed. He emerged from court an innocent man. Yet, as he himself has pointed out, ‘it’s always going to smear my name… there’s always going to be people out there who have the doubt’.

He is right. Innocence in sexual-assault cases, whether established by a jury’s verdict or via the Court of Appeal, means next to nothing these days. Anyone accused of sexual assault is effectively branded a rapist forever. Your biometric details will be on a police database for as long as you are alive. Discredited allegations will be disclosed to potential employers and voluntary organisations during any enhanced vetting and barring checks, smearing your name again and again.

In reality, there is no prospect of ‘rehabilitation’ for people who are falsely accused of sexual crimes. The allegation matters far more than the legal outcome. Even if you have never been arrested or charged, the damage done to reputations, careers and families is usually irreparable.

Mr Kay’s ordeal was far from over when he left the Court of Appeal. Following the quashing of his rape conviction, he tried to claim compensation from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) for the more than two years of his life that had effectively been stolen from him. But last week, the MoJ turned down Mr Kay’s compensation claim on the following grounds:

‘The Secretary of State for Justice has concluded that the conviction was not reversed as a result of a new or newly discovered fact that shows beyond reasonable doubt that you did not commit the offence.’

In recent years, this kind of sophistry has become the standard response of MoJ bureaucrats to any compensation claim following the quashing of a wrongful conviction, especially when the original accusation involved sexual assault. Victims of miscarriages of justice are often kicked out of the prison gate penniless.

Victor Nealon, for instance, served 17 years in prison for a rape he did not commit. He was originally sentenced to seven years but served an extra 10 because he maintained his innocence. DNA tests exonerated him (pointing to another man) and his conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal. But not only did the MoJ refuse to compensate him for such a blatant miscarriage of justice, it even tried to pursue him for the legal costs of his compensation claim. This is particularly sickening considering the fact that taxpayers’ cash is routinely handed out by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) to false accusers, including Carl Beech and Jemma Beale, who are rarely asked to pay it back.

The denial of appropriate redress to the falsely accused must end. It makes it almost impossible for the wrongly convicted ever to clear their names. After all, if the MoJ doesn’t consider you deserving of recompense for their lost years in jail, why should members of the public believe your protestations of innocence? Justice is denied and responsibility for mistakes is shrugged off.

Following my own experience of our so-called justice system, I have often reflected on the significant resources that are devoted by various charities and other organisations to support the rehabilitation of convicted criminals. Yet absolutely nothing is provided for those who are innocent and wrongly convicted. Many emerge from the courtroom or from the prison gate homeless, jobless, financially ruined and effectively unemployable – forever manacled to the lies of an anonymous accuser. Why should the innocent – like Mr Kay, Mr Nealon and many others – face an unrelenting battle to re-establish themselves back into society?

Perhaps victims of false allegations are simply the wrong kind of victim. They do not deserve to be treated with such cruelty and indifference.

Simon Warr is a BBC broadcaster, and author of Presumed Guilty: A teacher’s solitary battle to clear his name.

Picture by: James Cridland, published under a creative commons license.

Help spiked prick the Covid consensus

So here we are – 14 weeks into Britain’s three-week lockdown. We hope you are all staying sane out there, and that spiked has been of some assistance in that. We have ramped up our output of late, to provide a challenge to the Covid consensus. But we couldn’t have done that without your support. spiked – unlike so many things these days – is completely free. We rely on our loyal readers to fund our journalism. So if you enjoy our work, please do consider becoming a regular donor. Even £5 per month can be a huge help. You can donate here.Thank you! And stay well.

Donate now

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Share
Topics Politics UK

Comments

Daddy Bones

29th January 2020 at 5:29 pm

The legal system is one purely of commerce. “Legal” effectively means “commercially viable.” What is illegal is not necessarily unlawful. There’s no Law that says you can’t sell weed – or indeed own a gun. Never conflate the two terms or concepts. Statutes are not Laws. It’s been largely this way since the MoJ was registered as a corporation almost 400 years ago. Step by step, the organisation has grown into a colossal, powerful banking-styled business operated indirectly by an actual banking consortium. There are neither Law nor justice in its operations now. Courts are banks and judges act as bankers for the Crown. Police simply create joinders to start the legal process.

The system cannot admit its treasonous modus operandi for fear of exposing its workings to a public that might tear it down. Occasionally, some arbiter, barrister or copper might be pushed onto a metaphoric sword over a major instance of clear injustice that raises voluble public ire – that’s good business sense – but nobody much cares about men rotting or dying in prison if there’s a chance he might have abused a female. In most cases, she will have been the abuser. Nobody wants to hear that either.

Judicial reviews do occasionally take place. The system thereby feigns apology, promises sweeping change and quickly adjusts accordingly – so there is no loss in business. If there’s a big payout to a ruined faimily or community, that was public money to begin with. The Crown simply takes more back elsewhere. More prisons are built, then filled. More people die. The public gets weaker in the face of this armed-to-the-teeth system of tyranny.

In any legal case, the Crown charges your estate title (which is a Crown-held liability, not yours) and you unwittingly offer yourself as surety against it. You then be treated as stock. The procedure or verdict in a case has the “colour” of Law – it all looks very “official” – but has no actual basis in the Law on the land. Private, commercial statutes are quoted, violations claimed, the estate is charged, the books are balanced, the public foots the bill and if you’re warehoused (jailed), the public pays for that as well. If you were innocent of any crime, it doesn’t matter. You admitted at step one (by giving your title instead of your real name to so-called “police”; NEVER do this) you were Crown property and subject therafter to treatment as a foreign, endebted, commercial entity.

Going through the “appeals” process is simply an admission of guilt. It’s “legally” an acceptance of the verdict, judgement and punishment while weakly pleading for (fiscal) clemency. This is almost never given because it incurs a loss and admission of Crown fault which may lead to an unravelling of the game. Accusers get paid – a serious crime itself – and the public foots the bill. Accusers don’t have to pay their fraudulent earnings back because the system is not one of Law; more payouts encourage more false claimants. For claims of rape by women, falsehood is now near-total. Fabricated crimes by men against women/children are now among the Crown’s biggest and easiest judicial moneyspinners. Rather bizarre, considering that the vocation which employs the most rapists per-capita is that of “police officer” and Social Services the most paedophiles and hebephiles.

Never answer a single question from a Crown opertative, ever. The Law doesn’t compel you to under any circumstances. If you do, you’re simply contracting yourself. It’s better to remain utterly mute and spend a night or two in the cells than think your innocence will save you.

Bill Cecil

26th November 2019 at 9:41 am

Shocking. But it is time that the anonymity of the accuser was removed. If you can’t accuse in the light of common day then you ought to stay silent. And if you falsely accuse then those you defame should be able to sue you for it. Time the pitch was levelled up a bit.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.