Oct 21 2006
Common Sense Potential
A Labour peer yesterday named a “serial and repeated liar” whose false allegations resulted in an innocent man being jailed for a sex attack. Lord Campbell-Savours used parliamentary privilege to name the woman during a debate in the House of Lords on rape legislation. He suggested that women who make false allegations of rape should be named and prosecuted for perjury. It is believed to be the first time that the identity of a woman who claims that she has been the victim of a sexual offence has been revealed in Parliament. Women’s rights groups said that they feared that the naming of the woman would further deter rape victims from reporting their ordeal.
It is a criminal offence to name anyone who complains to police that they have been the victim of a sexual offence, even if the alleged attacker is found not guilty in court. But Lord Campbell-Savours is protected from legal action for comments made in the House of Lords. Speaking in the Lords he said: “Is not the inevitable consequence of the workings of the law as currently framed that we will carry on imprisoning innocent people such as Warren Blackwell, who was falsely accused by a serial and repeated liar, (the woman’s name), who has a history of making false accusations and having multiple identities? “As a result of her accusations, he spent three and a half years in prison following a shabby and inadequate police investigation and was exonerated only when the Criminal Cases Review Commission inquiry cleared him and traced her history.
“Should not mature accusers who perjure themselves in rape trials be named and prosecuted for perjury?” The official record of the Houses of Parliament, Hansard, included the woman’s name in its report because it believed it was covered by parliamentary privilege. However, the Press Association later removed the woman’s identity from its report of the debate after seeking legal advice, which said that she was entitled, by statute, to lifelong anonymity. Lord Cambell-Savours said last night that he was unable to comment further on the issue because he would not be covered by privilege outside Parliament.
Technorati Tags: rape, uk, england, parliament, law
October 22nd, 2006 at 12:30 am
If someone is going to accuse another, then they should be aware that their identity, reputation, and value system is on the line as well. Lifelong anonymity may be misused in terms of serving all parties in a fair and just manner.
October 22nd, 2006 at 10:34 am
Lifelong anonymity is one thing. But if someone is found to have lied (and that doesn’t automatically mean every case where a rape victim can’t prove they were raped, but that the story was willingly fabricated) then dammit their name should be all over the place. An innocent man’s reputation is just as important as a rape victim’s.
October 22nd, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Anonymity is used for protection of life, albeit quality of life. Not having any “credentials” but my own opinion to offer, conditions of anonymity do not always serve one well in dealing with a “real” trauma and healing the damage.
And, absolutely, if someone fabricates such an atrocity, they should face the consequences of their actions. That may be difficult given the scenario you have described. Lies will not be so easily discerned under these “hands tied” conditions.