The Truth About IPP Sentences

Police invitations to ‘victims’ encouraging false allegations

Police statements encourage false claims of sexual abuse

Police statements encourage false claims of sexual abuse

Police officers making statements related to sex abuse cases have been told to always include a reference to “brave victims” and to always invite other “victims” to come forward with more allegations, safe in the knowledge that they will be assumed to be telling the truth, even though they may well have other motives.

The result is that police are being inundated with allegations from the distant past as well as more recent accusations, many of which may be completely unfounded.

In another populist move, police now routinely speak of “victims” rather than “accusers” or “complainants” after criticism from campaign groups that people were being discouraged from reporting genuine cases of abuse for fear that they would not be believed.

The reality is however that whatever one may feel, nobody is entitled to be referred to as a “victim” unless and until it has been proven that they have in fact been abused; until then, they are merely an “accuser” or “complainant”.

As has previously pointed out, the law dictates that those who have successfully convinced a court that they have been abused will most likely receive significant compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority or have the option to sue the (often very wealthy) alleged perpetrator.

However, the compensation, rather than being paid to those providing appropriate medical, psychological or counselling services, is instead paid straight into the bank account of the person receiving it.

Senior barristers have recently pointed out that because in abuse cases hard evidence is not required for a conviction, merely a “pattern of events that is similar in a number of cases”, the number of allegations to police has increased dramatically as individuals become aware of the potential to receive compensation payments whilst remaining completely anonymous, protected and safe from criticism.

At present, there is no anonymity for those accused but there is life-long anonymity for accusers.

Further concern is now being expressed over the manner in which police forces are exploiting the currently highly emotive state of public opinion in order to repair the damage done to police reputations in the wake of the Jimmy Savile affair.

Every police statement following a successful prosecution, every statement regarding an arrest must now include an invitation for more accusers to come forward with any allegation relating to abuse.

The recent arrest of the Deputy Speaker, Nigel Evans is a case in point.

Not only did police apparently tip off the press that they were going to arrest Mr Evans in order that the proceedings could be captured on film for public consumption but they also made a statement that included an invitation for others to come forward with any claims of abuse they may have.

The police statements in such cases now always include the words (or similar):

“We take all allegations of a sexual nature extremely seriously and understand how difficult it can be for victims to have the confidence to come forward.

“We would encourage anyone who has experienced sexual abuse, no matter how long ago, or who has information about it, to have the confidence to report it to us knowing that we will take it seriously, deal with it sensitively and investigate it thoroughly.”

These very same words can be heard up and down the country now every time there is an allegation, investigation or court statement regarding sexual abuse, be it current or “historic”.

The police are not alone in using this new tactic either. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is just as guilty of encouraging false accusations by the endless repetition of:

“We have carefully considered the evidence and believe that there is sufficient evidence for a successful prosecution and that that it is in the public interest to prosecute.”

The fact is that there is often little, if any evidence to consider in the first place other than the word of the accuser.

The CPS are also going out of their way to garner popular support in these cases.

After the conviction of Stuart Hall, Nazir Afzal, chief crown prosecutor for north-west England and who clearly enjoys being on television, described Mr Hall as an ‘opportunistic predator’, saying he established a pattern of behaviour that was ‘unlawful’ and for which no innocent explanation could be offered. believes that it inappropriate for a senior prosecutor to express a personal opinion as part of a public statement, especially before sentencing of the defendant has taken place and where the sentence could well be affected by such a statement – even if it is not meant to be so affected.

The CPS prosecutor also appeared to be disingenuous in his claim that the alleged victims “…did not know each other”.

It later came to light that in fact most of the 13 alleged victims apparently did know each other and that in some cases, their parents were friends of Mr Hall.

Only two girls were seemingly not actually known to each other and, in our opinion, the prosecutor was either mistaken – in which case he should have corrected his statement – or was simply being dishonest in order to attract favourable publicity.

Others have expressed surprise that Mr Hall admitted’ the offences having previously denied them.

Actually, there is nothing remotely surprising about this given that the CPS dropped a charge of rape in return for his admissions of guilt to the lesser offences.

The applicable law of the time (which must be applied in sentencing) provides for a maximum sentence of two years for Indecent Assault; the offence of Rape on the other hand does – and always has done – carry a maximum sentence of life Imprisonment.

Which option would any sensible person under immense pressure choose when knowing that a jury would find them guilty in any case, regardless of the lack of any hard evidence? Admit the indecent assaults with its two year sentence or be tried for rape and risk life imprisonment?

This ‘unofficial plea-bargaining’ is applied by the CPS in cases every day and is allowed to continue because it is ‘politically expedient’; from the point of view of the authorities and the campaigning groups that support them, it is better to have everyone accused of a sexual offence convicted for something rather than a lack of real evidence causing the case to fall apart.

According to the Prosecutor’s Code of Practice, the CPS, in order to bring a case to prosecution, have to apply two main tests:

  • Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on each charge. They must consider what the defence case may be, and how it is likely to affect the prospects of conviction.
  • In every case where there is sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution, prosecutors must go on to consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest.

In terms of “the public interest”, the following questions must be asked:

  • How serious is the offence committed?
  • What is the level of culpability of the suspect?
  • What are the circumstances of and the harm caused to the victim?
  • Was the suspect under the age of 18 at the time of the offence?
  • What is the impact on the community?
  • Is prosecution a proportionate response?
  • Do sources of information require protecting?

In reality, any likelihood of a “successful conviction” comes not from “real” evidence but from the fact that there is now not a jury in the land that will not convict the defendant in a case of alleged sexual abuse, particularly if the alleged victim was a child at the time of the alleged offence.

In cases of sexual abuse allegedly involving children, senior barristers and even some judges now privately admit that it has become impossible to mount an effective defence in such cases. Juries today convict on emotion rather than fact because there is no evidence other that the word of the accuser.

The police and CPS said in the case of Jimmy Savile that “…where so many people who do not know each other all say the same thing, it must be true.”

In fact, if one reads the report into Savile presented by the police and the NSPCC, it is nothing more than a list of accusations; there is no proof or evidence present at all.

In any event, this absurd statement by the police misses the point entirely.

Any reasonable person can see that, given the amount of information that was in the public domain (especially the tabloids), anyone with an agenda could have simply copied any of the well-publicised statements and gone to the police claiming to be a ‘victim’; no doubt with their bank account number in hand.

This practice of using ‘patterns of behaviour’ as supposed proof of wrongdoing is known as ‘Similar Fact Evidence’, a nasty piece of Law dreamt up in the 1980s in order to convict people of serious sexual offences where no real evidence otherwise exists.

‘Similar Fact Evidence’ is in reality probably more responsible for innocent people being sent to jail for alleged sexual offences than anything else.

That innocent people are often sent to jail is not disputed. The government itself has previously stated in Parliament it estimates up to 10,000 of those in jail – about 11% – are probably innocent. believes that both policemen and CPS officers should stop trying to ingratiate themselves with the public by expressing open invitations to people to come forward on the basis that they will automatically be believed.

Anonymity should also be given to the accused at least until they are charged and possibly even until they have been convicted.

The Director of Public prosecutions, Keir Starmer recently said he wanted more prosecutions for sexual abuse and wanted the police and CPS to concentrate on testing the suspect, not the honesty of the alleged victim.

By making this statement, he has knowingly and willingly opened the door to an endless stream of greedy, often vindictive individuals seeking a chance to make easy money or who for personal reasons wish to destroy the lives of others.

Starmer has also devalued the claims of genuine victims of abuse and guaranteed even more miscarriages of justice, all in the cause of self-aggrandisement and populist policies.

He has at a stroke destroyed any possibility of a fair trial in sex abuse cases and obliterated any chance of someone accused of a sexual offence against a child ever being presumed innocent until proven guilty – despite such a presumption of innocence being required by law.

The police and CPS are equally to blame.

They both say that they need to encourage other witnesses or “victims” to come forward in order to build a case against the accused and it seems that police officers in particular will now do anything in order to achieve this goal, even if by doing so they destroy innocent lives, ruin reputations, rip families apart and in some cases, cost individuals their life. would suggest that instead of ‘touting for business’, police stop taking the easy route and get down to some hard work by trying to find some real evidence instead of just relying on the alleged victim’s word and that of their friends – which may be true but, in a rapidly growing number of cases, is proving to be false, vindictive, driven by greed and wholly manufactured for personal gain or gratification.

If the police disagree with us, they are always most welcome to comment below.

(Join our Forum now for more on this. Click HERE)

(The CPS Code for Crown Prosecutors can be found HERE)

Tags: , , , ,

6 Responses to Police invitations to ‘victims’ encouraging false allegations

  1. Mike
    May 10, 2013 at 11:53 am

    Another good one from Raymond.
    I have tried to interest human-rights lawyers about these cases under an article 6 agenda; the right to a fair trial, but so far, not the slightest bit of interest has been shown by them.
    I suspect that only an accused person can make representations under ECHR laws, and of course I am not, and hopefully, never shall be, but under the current hysteria, who can say what may arise from a minor indiscretion from 40 years ago?
    We all have reason to worry.
    The Barrister, Barbara Hewson made some very good points in “Spiked” recently but unfortunately made the controversial statement that the Age of Consent should be lowered to thirteen; that was jumped-on by the likes of The Sun and another Murdoch paper, the Times (how that one has gone down-market!)
    I have definitely noticed though, that more and more people that I speak to are realising that something is seriously going wrong with our justice system.

  2. ptt
    May 8, 2013 at 5:13 pm

    Another superb article from Mr Peytors. Finally someone who is willing to stand up and question the madness which is now engulfing Britain.

  3. Norman Scarth
    May 7, 2013 at 7:13 pm

    I applaud EVERY WORD of the excellent analysis by Raymond Peytors of the current situation re. complaints about sexual abuse, with all too many being urged to jump on the bandwagon (& you John O for publishing it).
    If campaigners be so minded, let them push for the heaviest penalties where there truly has been a sexual crime: life imprisonment, castration or death!
    However, IMHO, to demand, award, offer or accept financial compensation for sexual abuse turns the abused into a prostitute.
    There was a notable example a few years ago when a Leeds woman was given permission to sue a man who had been convicted of a sexual offence (not rape) against her many years before – but had since won the lottery!
    She – now in her 70s – was of course being encouraged by her relatives to sue him for compensation! ‘That figures’, as the Americans would say!
    In my view, the rot set in when anonymity was granted to women who alleged that a sexual crime had been committed against them.
    It is not ‘anti-woman’ to say this went agains the centuries old practice of an accuser being required to stand behind their words.
    Nowadays we are told that women can do everything a man can do – & do it better!
    They can fight in the front line, pilot nuclear bombers, crew nuclear warships & fight in the boxing ring.
    However, when it comes to standing behind their words, all of a sudden they become a poor, weak, trembling woman, who must be protected – pass the smelling salts!
    Nowadays it seems the only crimes of any consequence are sexual ones, or ‘racism’.
    When will we hear or read the words,
    “We take all allegations of crimes by corrupt judges or bent coppers extremely seriously and understand how difficult it can be for victims to have the confidence to come forward.
    “We would encourage anyone who has experienced abuse by corrupt judges or bent coppers, no matter how long ago, or who has information about it, to have the confidence to report it to us knowing that we will take it seriously, deal with it sensitively and investigate it thoroughly.”
    When will they invite other victims or witnesses of THOSE crimes to come forward?
    Norman Scarth.
    PS: In case Mr Peytor is not aware, after 18 years of persecution by corrupt judges & bent coppers, at the age of 86 I was forced to flee the land of my birth (the land for which I fought in World War 2) & seek safety from their malice in Ireland.

  4. Jane
    May 7, 2013 at 4:21 pm

    At last, somebody is actually confronting the issue and talking complete sense in a world of ‘sex abuse allegations’ nonsense. I could not have put it better myself, and the sooner the general public wake up and realise that miscarriages of justice are taking place every day, the better. It will take a brave newspaper to print the article by Mr Peytors, but surely to God, it should happen one day to stop the madness from continuing. Where will it all end? If it wasn’t so awful, it would be laughable, but real lives are affected by the accusers making completely false claims to through their vindictiveness and maliciousness. The only victims as far as I’m concerned are the falsely accused along with their partners and families. This compensation culture has got to stop, so that a personal cheque is not being waved like a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow for the complainants. Anybody with a grudge to bear can make an accusation, and before you know it, an arrest has been made, charges brought and a trial for a ‘dead man walking’ is set. I actually witnessed complainants laughing on the way in to give evidence at a trial for sexual offences, and they laughed all the to bank on the way out. One spent his spoils on a holiday to Florida, and one bought a top of the range sports car. So much for the misery and pain that their ‘abuse’ caused them and their need for psychological treatment. They didn’t seek it, because they didn’t need it. I’m all for genuine cases being brought to trial, but the aftercare treatment for these cases needs to be put in place whereby no cash should change hands, otherwise, its just a licence to print money, which is paid for by the tax payer. Perhaps if the public knew where their hard earned cash went to, they may think twice about supporting all these so called ‘victims’ that ruin the lives of law abiding citizens.

  5. Richard
    May 7, 2013 at 2:53 pm

    This is the first honest appraisal of the current police madness related to sexual abuse that I have seen; probably because it is a view that will annoy the authorities.

    The fact is that the police fit people up every day and the public, who have little option but to accept what the police tell them, always assume that the accused is guilty.

    CPS deals are commonplace and are usually arrived at by effectively blackmailing the accused into admitting guilt or else getting a much lionger sentence.

    This country is obsessed with child sex abuse and until ordinary people start speaking out, any man (or woman) remains completely open to false accusation in the sure knowledge that even if there is no evidence, they will surely be convicted.

    Thank you for this brave article Mr Peytors. Such honesty is rare nowadays, mainly because of fear of speaking out or, in the case of charities, newspapers and campaign groups, pure unadulterated profit.

    • Andy
      May 7, 2013 at 3:49 pm

      Solicitors are also to blame for the current situation in plea bargaining. Because of the situation of the inability to provide a defence, or at least a cost effective one due to the cuts in legal aid. Solicitors and barristers now try to push a defendant into admitting crimes which they should be able to provide a defence.

      “Juries won’t like you or me if I bring this beofre them” was one quotaion I have heard, “If you admit to the lesser offence I will see what I can do to get the CPS to get the other to lie on file!” was another quote.

      Surely Solicitors should be doing whats best for their clients not whats best for their pockets (Legal aid Custs again).

      All I can say is that if you are innocent then never admit to the crime, easpecially if it involves children – going to prison is all well and good but you have to be able to live when relased – and their are worse things than going to jail especially if its in the media spotlight.

      Accused should also have the right of annonimity right up to the point of sentence, the same as an accuser. There was the bill put to the gov from Anna Subrey re “arrested persons anonimity bill” but it looks like it has been dropped for ever.

      Excellet article Raymond as usual – keep up the good work.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

SPAM protection: Please fill in the missing number... Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.