Man appeals to sue his rape accuser
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Women who cry rape face being sued for hundreds of thousands of pounds in damages if the prosecution fails to secure a conviction in court, it was claimed during a landmark legal challenge yesterday.
Anthony Hunt, 69, a former magistate from Dorset, was jailed for rape for four years in 2003 but had his conviction quashed on appeal in 2005. Yesterday he asked the Court of Appeal to allow him to sue his accuser, identified as AB, for damages of £300,000 for what he said amounted to his malicious prosecution. The case could open the floodgates for compensation claims from hundreds of men who have been cleared of rape.
Lawyers and women's rights groups said that, if successful, the action could set back the prosecution of rape by decades. Mr Hunt has argued that the woman became the prosecutor by giving a witness statement to police in 2002 and by agreeing to give evidence against him, although the charge was brought by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
Anna Mills, a lawyer at law firm Lovells, who acts for AB on a pro bono basis, said: "The case is unusual because Mr Hunt brought his initial claim against the complainant rather than the prosecuting authorities. This means that our client... is personally having to defend his claim for £300,000 in damages."
Ms Mills added: "Casting AB as the 'prosecutor' in a rape case brought by the proper authorities is oppressive... If the appeal succeeds, it will have serious public policy implications and allow rape complainants... to be sued by their alleged attackers."
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
Is there one law for women and one for men?
All this is going to do is discourage women who have been raped from coming forward, in case they are sued for falsely accusing.
Yes, some women do falsely accuse, and yes, some men are wrongly convicted. However, this number is *tiny* compared the number of women who are raped and either do not come forward, or the case never makes it to court because of a lack of evidence.
This, in my opinion, is extremely unfair for two reasons:
a) it is not fair that the law may allow personal liability for a court ruling and the criminal prosecution process. If he was prosecuted initially and then quashed, thats an issue (or an error, as some may view it) of the system, NOT of the person who has made complaint to the Crown and has sought justice via criminal proceedings. The ramifications have the potential to effect cases outside of rape. ie. if someone was initially imprisoned for theft/murder/fraud etc, and then had appeals upheld.
b) Women have a pretty tough time as it is in reporting rape. There have been vast improvements in the courts' attitude towards rape victims and how criminal proceedings are conducted, but there is still some bias in the system. By leaving them liable to personal liability from a failed criminal, especially if the appeal is allowed because of a lack of evidence rather than outright exoneration of guilt, it will severally discourage a lot of women from reporting rape and will put the whole process of the law better protecting women from rape, almost back to where we started.
It is definitely not one law for women, another for men. The issue is more about a point of legal process rather what protection is given to whom. As much as I'm sure Mr Hunt's two years in jail weren't pleasant, and his quest for compensation for the grievance caused is very understandable, it cannot be done via shifting liability to an individual over the failings of the process that is brought about via the Crown and the legal system.
However, if Mr Hunt can prove that ABs prosecution was vicious and unfounded, then he should be able to bring some manner of proceedings. If so, I would hope that the civil courts require a hgih burden of proof to show that AB was demonstratively vicious in her accusation, and knowingly set out to damage his career, reputation, and in this case, freedom.
But as Chuckkw says, each case will no doubt be decided on its own merits, and even if some manner of precedent is set by the case, it by no means mean it will be permenant and strict, as precedents in a lot of cases have been; ever changing and adapted to fit the case, rather than have the case fit the precedent.
The case should proceed on its merits, even though the plaintiff is a man and the respondent a woman.
So a verdict of not guilty' does not necessarily suggest innocence on the accused part.
Rape is not an uncommon crime. It is, in fact, a common crime. Men, women and children can all be victims, so it should not be presumed that the attacked person is female. It is a complex crime too... there are normally no witnesses, so you have a situation where its one person's word against anothers. It can also be a confused crime... victims can freeze in shock, attackers may misinterpret that as submission. Attackers may be of an old fashioned opinion that if they 'just get on with it' their victim will start enjoying it eventually, and not realise how cruel and distressing this action is.
Very few victims take it to court because they know their chances of getting a successful conviction is so low, and because the idea of a court case is so harrowing. If a genuine victim of rape is then frightened of being sued on top of that, rapists will be laughing. They will become almost untouchable.
Rapists also are not the most considerate of people. Its a crime of hate, not of passion, and I think they would have no qualms about attacking their victim once more, especially if there is a financial incentive.
The problem we have with rape cases and the welfare of the accused is that their identities are not protected. Much of these problems of the terrifying affect of false accusation would be solved if the identities of the accused were protected. I think, not only would this keep the innocent lives safer, but it might deter females who want to assassinate a man with a false accusation.
I ask the courts to please, please not let this worrying current case succeed. This man was found guilty of rape and there is no suggestion at all that his victim invented it. His conviction was overturned on legal technicalities, rather than on any suggestion of his innocence.
I'm sorry but there are false allegations made so who protects the man/woman in this scenario.
Also you state the problem is that the identities of the victims are revealed - I disagree; the problem is who they are viewed by the rest of us, especially other women - getting rid of that attitude in society would go a long way to increasing the conviction rate "the no smoke without fire" mentality of the collective is the problem.
Ultimately you have to be prepared to stand up for yourself in this world no matter how painful if you want justice.
"Rapists also are not the most considerate of people. Its a crime of hate, not of passion, and I think they would have no qualms about attacking their victim once more, especially if there is a financial incentive." - err what? you now think people are going to rape, risk a lengthy custodial sentence as a nonce simply for profit if they then manage to get the conviction overturned?
Finally this door could swing both ways since a civil case apparantly requires less proof than a criminal;
why don't more victims do the same; if they get off the criminal charge sue them into poverty.
If you want your pound of flesh you have to be a driven as shylock.
About protecting identities, its the accused that I believe should have their identity protected, to lesson trauma to their lives before conviction. I think its is a terrible thing that accused rapists are named and this should be changed urgently, I feel.
With my comment about rapists using civil cases to attack their victim again...
to further explain, rapists would probably be very frightened and angry during their initial trial. The problem would start when they realised they had 'got away with it' and could have revenge on their victim for speaking out against them. The thought of money could be tempting, as could the thought of further attacking their victim.
High time rape victims were sued for speaking out against their attackers?
This is an extremely complex matter.
Isn't it just ? Almost impossible to determine, in most cases, which of the accused and the victim is acting maliciously. There's going to be reasonable doubt in most cases. I have no idea how that can be resolved.
With no hard data, we simply don't know the number of malicious accusations. Is it 10%, is it 0.01 % ?
I don't think there's any doubt that the current system does not cater well for this particular crime.
And because convictions are so hard to get, that makes it harder too, to fully exonerate the innocent, so once their name has been made public, they are ruined, even if found innocent. The public knows that guilty men get away with it quite easily in court.
I don't know what the answer is but I don't think terrifying genuine victims out of reporting rapes is the answer.
I agree with women being imprisoned when it is proven that they made it up. Its a disgusting thing to do.
I think there are also confused sexual encounters, where the woman genuinely feels her wishes were not respected, and that she found herself in a position where she was having sex with a man she did not want, and who did not care about her wishes, but she was not assertive enough, or too shocked, confused, scared or embarrassed to react. The man would walk away thinking she was just a bit frigid, not knowing that all kinds of distress and hurt was taking place inside her mind during the event. He might walk away with a contended smile, no idea any wrongdoing took place, while she runs horrified to the bathroom to wash him off her and weep about it. She feels raped but is that rape? I've had friends who were bought stronger drinks than they asked for, ended up incapacitated and in receipt of this kind of experience. Its very commonplace, I feel.
Public education is important. Men need to understand that factors like the woman being drunk should not be taken as a sexual opportunity, but a high risk rape accusation scenario.
Simple measures like making sure he always asks 'are you sure you want to?' at the last moment before sex (which decent men always do in my experience) rather than just getting on with it (which is how more shallow males behave, I'm afraid) would protect men too, from accusations.
I've also encountered males who are of the opinion that females are mainly frigid and that if they start sex assertively, she'll start enjoying it during the act.
Educating males won't reduce malicious accusations, or violent ones, but it will reduce the more confused and muddy rape trials.
I don't think many men behave in the horrid ways I described above and maybe those that do deserve some kind of shock or punishment. I do think such men don't realise how inappropriate their behavour is, and then are up in arms of indignation when they end up in the courts.
So maybe there is little the courts can do, but much that public education can do... educating people on their right to say no to sex, and how to say no when cornered and uncomfortable, and educating males of the importance of making sure their partner actually does want them, and how to protect themselves from making the kinds of mistakes of judgement that may end them up in the courts.
A man found innocent after a rape trial could be either completely innocent, or a violent rapist who got away with it, or a clumsy, thoughtless lover. I think the last example is probably the majority one.
In other words, how about simply educating women to be traditional, feminine, ladies instead of acting like modern, slutish, laddetes?
That's why, when both the man and the woman have sex while they are drunk, it's always the man who is prosecuted, and never the woman. Really fair, isn't it?
*WARNING definition of rape in next paragraph which may distress some people*
I do not know if women can be perpetrators of rape, but I do know that *legally, being raped requires that you have been penetrated against your will*. A male being forced, against his will, to perform sex upon a person, though equally serious, legally is not defined as rape. So I will refer to rape perpetrators as male in my reply.
You said...
"...when both the man and the woman have sex while they are drunk, it's always the man who is prosecuted, and never the woman. Really fair, isn't it?"
It is the person accused of the act of rape that is prosecuted, and the victim may be of either gender, so male/female bias should not play a part in rape courts. In fact when it does, the bias can be very much against the victim.
You mentioned men being prosecuted and women not being prosecuted...
With prosecutions arising, the police are obliged to pursue any rape complaints, which is why the cases reach court. This again is not a gender bias, but a protocol, and complainants may be male or female and of any age. There is no female bias. If a female commits the above defined penetrative crime she will be prosecuted for rape too.
You brought up the question of alcohol playing a part...
In cases of the parties being drunk, if the male is reckless of the incapacitated person's awareness or consent, then it is considered to be a rape. These are difficult trials because it is key to prosecution that is is proven that the accused did not seek and gain consent.
If a person wakes after drunken sex and regrets it, yet did agree to it, then its not rape. However, there is a possibility for a rape conviction if the person was fed stronger drinks than they requested.
I hope this reassures you that there is a not a gender bias specifically towards females in rape trials, and explains why the accused is generally male (because of the legal definition of rape). Rape and sex can be something very different.
It also explains why gaining a successful conviction in genuine cases is so hard, and therefore why civil cases against unsuccessful complainants may be especially cruel.
When a man goes to the police to report being raped (male rape by males is probably as common as female rape by males), this is also taken extremely seriously and the case is prosecuted exactly the same as if he were female. This used to be a problem for victims, but the police now take male rape very seriously.
Very recently a female was charged and prosecuted with sexually grooming a minor. I don't believe the police make gender distinctions in the area of sexual crimes, though admittedly they may have done once. The courts would not make a distinction either, though a jury may demonstrate some unfair bias, but that could be in either direction.
There is certainly a lot of gender bias in family courts. This has been a matter of concern for the majority of society for a very long time, and I think we would all like to see fathers be less maligned by society, and more valued as equal parents. There is a fight to be fought there, but I really don't believe that gender is a factor in sexual crimes in criminal courts, because both genders are treated equally, both can be, and are, charged and both can, and do, seek justice after being attacked.
If you wish to focus on male rights, it is family law that probably should have your attention, rather than criminal law.
I wrote to my MP about whether a woman who forces a individual to have sex can be charged with rape. I was told that the legal definition of rape is forced penetrative sex. I was told while a woman cannot be charged with rape if a woman was to force someone to have sex she would receive punishment and charges would be made of sexual assault. I wonder if she would receive a equal sentence then. Rape and sexual assault carry lesser time scales in prison. That could mean a woman would spend less time in prison if she was to rape a man.
Yes a woman groomed a minor. There was also news that a woman was sexually abusing children in a nursery in Plymouth. Some of this abuse was perpratrated against very young children. Some said it was penetratrive so therefore should be charged with raping a child. If a man was to abuse these children he would be branded a child rapist. This woman was charged with sex abuse but no counts of rape which seems unfair.
As for the comment if I wish to focus on male right, its is family law that should have my attention now criminal law. I think both criminal law and family law needs to change to protect people equally. When women committe the most serious of offences she should be charged in line with men. In the case of family law if a woman sexually abuses children she should be treated the same as a man committing the same offence. In terms of custody generally going to the mother this needs to be changed aswel. A father is just as important as a mother. In some cases children would be better off with the father than the mother. Most judges feel though children should be kept with the mother no matter what. If you had a emotionally abusive or worse mother and a father who left the relationship I bet the court would favour the mother
I think, if there is a problem out there of women forcing men to have sex against their wills, then its important that they start reporting the problem and pressing charges, so that the police know the situation exists. Laws often change in response to demand and if this abuse is occurring in our society, I'm sure the definition of rape would be altered to cater for it.
It is now becoming more well known that men suffer domestic violence from females and the police have much improved in responding to this (thought they are notoriously a bit rubbish in dealing with any domestic abuse). But they are improving. Forced sex is often part and parcel of abusive relationships, sadly, and as our understanding of female to male domestic violence increases, it is likely to be here that male victims of female 'rape' would come to the fore, and the legal definition may change in responce.
Male victims would need to find the courage to step forward and tell someone who can help, and not be ashamed, for the law to change, because policy generally changes through test cases, such as the one in the above article.
My concern is, if the above man wins, it will hurt male and female rape victims alike, and scare them into not reporting what they have suffered. It will stop the situation moving forward as well, in terms of men coming forward so we can understand what they suffer too.
People who have been proven to have made a false accusation should always be jailed, because it is utterly disgraceful, but at the same time, we should be doing what we can to help genuine victims come forward, so we, as a society, can help them and protect others from dangerous people, and preserve freedom. Its all ready hard enough for victims to get help, and especially with hidden male victims, we barely touch the tip of the iceberg of what some males suffer.
This is why I continue to oppose the civil case in this article. It is not an anti-male stance. I would be of the same opinion regardless of genders involved. If it was proven that she had lied, then she should be prosecuted, and would have been. If he had such evidence, I don't think he would have chosen a civil route against her. He wouldn't have needed to, because the mechanism is all ready in place for punishing people who lie about rape.
A 'not guilty' verdict in court should never be taken to mean that the person lied. This is because there must be no shadow of a doubt. A not guilty rape verdict says
"we, the jury, cannot be sure enough to convict. We can't establish who is telling the truth here."
It does not declare the alledged victim a liar. Its not a verdict of innocence on the part of the accused, but a verdict of uncertainty. If it does become transparent during trial that it was invented, then there is usually criminal proceedings against the person who invented it.
After most 'not guilty' rape trials, the dust never settles for those involved, because the truth was never established. In most scenarios, it probably can't be.
Rape is a very real crime, and it sadly happens a lot, so it can't be assumed that victims make it up. It is possible that culprits sometimes didn't realise they had done something wrong. But the majority of accused are, I suspect, genuine and knowing rapists. I don't think many victims would enter a court lightly, considering that its an ordeal for them too. I think the police probably know a genuine rape victim when they see one, too, from their professional experience, and its the police that take these cases into court.
Every stereotype out there implies men are never victims. Society are only just getting to grips with men as victims of child abuse and to a lesser extent domestic violence. All campaigns against sexual violence is aimed at women victims. All statistics are based on female victims. You never see a campaign out there asking male victims of rape to not suffer in silence and come forward. You never see information readily available for male victims regarding help lines etc. It is hardly suprising male victims stay silent.
Maybe when society accepts men can be victims and make this clear maybe men will come forward. Maybe we will eventually get a true picture of how many victims there are. Police stations, Drs, Hospitals, Sexual Health clinics etc all need to start offering information to male victims. Afterall it is not unusual to see information for female victims. I was on a bus and a advert flashed up on the banner a sexual abuse and incest centre for women between the ages of 16 and 24 - what about boys!!!!
The point being missed is that false accusations of rape (which may or may not be the case here) waste resources and sympathy that should be available for genuine rape survivors. There is a reasonable public interest in discouraging frivolous and vexatious accusations, not least in the interest of rape victims themselves.
This will not set back rape convictions it is a lesson for those who do cry rape to think their accusations very carefully before they act on them. No human should be unfairly treated for something they have not done...
I have an ex work colleague who genuinely believes she was raped by someone she lived with (a flatmate). She was deeply traumatized by the experience, although no doubt partly due to the fact that she had had a few drinks, her memory of the details of the actual rape itself was patchy. The medical tests proved that she had been forced into sex and she distinctly remembered saying 'No' and pushing the guy away.
However, the entire legal process she went through to try to bring her accuser to justice simply added to the trauma. It took over a year to get to court, and when it did, after 2 days of legal argument (which she was not privy to) the trial never happened because of a discrepancy regarding the evidence and the fact that some other evidence collected by the police was not logged/documented within the required timeframes.
She thought long and hard about taking the case to court and believed that, despite everything, she was doing the right thing, both for herself in terms of 'closure' and for justice. In the end, she got neither. It was her word against his and there wasn't enough proven and admissable evidence to take it to court.
In this situation, to have the man she believes raped her, sue her could have been the final straw. I know that for at least 6 months after the attack she suffered from severe depression and was at some points suicidal.
I believe she did the right thing, but she probably wouldn't have tried to do so if there was a threat she could be sued.
On the other hand, I know that there are some women out there that would falsely accuse someone of rape for all sorts of reasons of their own, and it's frustrating that such people get away pretty much scott-free.
Not an easy situation...
But there is also the risk that date rape drugs were used so the vitim would not ever be sure and this is another big risk as well. Its a very murky area of the law.
If women stopped making false allegations then genuine accusations would be taken more seriously. These lying women not only destroy the lives of innocent men but damage the cause of other women too.
Women who make false allegations should receive the same sentence a man would receive if found guilty - about seven years in jail. As the courts are failing to protect men from these malicious women then it is right that men should be able to sue these lying women.
However there is a degree of personal responsibility here (which seems to have vanished from our society in the last 10 years) on both parties - some men should be more wary of putting themselves in a situation where an accusation might result i.e. more restraint on the first date- prick teasers looking for a free bar etc; and some Women need to be more mindful of toying with fire unless they are sure.
As to Mumof3yorks comments about women who feel that their wishes were not respected or were not assertive enough - well disapointing/unfullfiling loveless sex doesn't constitute rape and as I said before if you can't stand up for yourself other people will invariably walk all over you - so don't put yourself in that situation in the first place.
Finally keep the posting on track its about whether a not someone who has had a conviction quashed has thr right to sue his/her accuser and rape should be no different in this regard than any other crime; not about prevailing sexual mores.
Its quite revealing that our society can't get past the sexual element and regard it just like any other serious crime. Why is it most people would feel more comfortable living next door to a murderer than a rapist for example?
whoever she is . I think the accused couls and should go further with his complaint, like sueing the cps
after all they were the ones who brought the prosecution , and what about a private prosecution ? I heard the figure of 300k this morning , who thinks this is too low? i think at least double that, this man
was in his 60's [ and i thought he was much younger] ,where was the dna evidence ??? IF, and this is a massive IF they did have sexual intercourse, then he would of left some of his semen in her . I disagree 100 % this case will put womens rape cases behind . Rape is a very inhuman and degrading crime against women, it sounds like to me this Woman has a real attitude against us men, and people like her AB ??? should be named and shamed and prosecuted and jailed , I'd love to know how she feels now this story has broken, if you ask me what she did was PURE EVIL, NOTHING MORE AND NOTHING LESS .