Weighing in on the recent row over how police chose to treat allegations of child abuse (the controversial policy advised detectives to automatically believe people who alleged they had been raped or sexually abused but was later dropped) is the College of Policing’s chief executive, Alex Marshall, who has said this week that abuse victims should be believed in order to encourage victims to come forward.
This policy creates an awkward paradox. If the police are to believe that all allegations are true, then the UK’s current presumption of innocence rule (which tells us that anyone accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty) could be perceived to be under threat. In contrast, the persisting view that those who allege abuse are narcissistic fantasists and make up the majority of those bringing allegations, is also unhelpful and not based in any concrete data.
There is no doubt, however, that more should be done to encourage victims to report abuse, and a working philosophy which is respectful, rather than cynical or doubting of allegations, must be put in place. It is perfectly possible to listen without prejudice whilst ensuring that those who have been genuinely wronged are protected, but this requires a sophisticated approach which may well not be instilled in policing culture, or practice at this point. The latest research suggests that the police are no better at sifting through allegations than the general public, something which would need to be addressed before any meaningful policies could be implemented.
What do you think? Does belief in an allegation automatically presume the accused party is guilty, or can we put into place working policies which allow us to ‘believe’ but at the same time process information without bias?
POINTS OF APPEAL I suggested for a recent case show the danger in presuming guilt instead of innocence!
1:- My principal witness Professor C was not allowed to testify on false memory syndrome contrary to Article 6 (human rights act) that gives anyone accused of a crime the right to call witnesses.
2:- Despite repeated requests to my Counsel that I should give evidence to deny the charges they did not call me so I had no chance to speak contrary to article 6 that gives anyone accused of a crime the right to defend themselves in person.
3:- The judge did not warn me of the implications that the jury might make if I did not give evidence myself.
4:- 268 alterations were made illegally to court documents prior to the case .Police evidence on oath established that the purpose of these (admitted to them by the guilty social worker) was to eliminate any leading questions that might have been put to the children and to remove anything that might have incriminated the Foster carers.The man who made the alterations was not called to give evidence and noone was prosecuted despite the fact that if an effort had been made to find out the significance of the alterations it might well have shown that leading questions had been put by Foster carers( who were very well paid while the children remained in their charge) to the children with rewards for the correct answers. Similarly they might have revealed coaching by Foster carers and social workers who could even have been the abusers of the children themselves and hence ordered alterations in the children’s statements that might have incriminated them!
The learned judge made no reference to the possible importance of these illegal alterations to documents.
5:The judge stated categorically to the jury that the children had been abused and that they only needed to decide who had done it.Apart from one accused who admitted under pressure that “she supposed some abuse had happened” the statements by the children were protected by the judge who forbade the Counsel to ask any questions as to their veracity.There was no conclusive evidence of abuse and medical examinations of the children showed nothing untoward.The judge never mentioned the possibility of the Foster carers committing any abuse that had happened or the possibility that no abuse had happened at all.He should have mentioned all possibilities to the jury rather than draw his own conclusions and put them to the jury as
LikeLike
Reblogged this on L8in.
LikeLike
Pingback: Abuse Victims Should Be Believed, Says College of Policing | meggiemom342
The principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is sacrosanct. This does not stop the police from investigating suspects, but the way some of these people have been treated and ‘named and shamed’ before the case is brought to court, or dropped, is shameful. Also stating that an accuser is ‘credible and true’ before starting an inquiry is irresponsible. The accuser is given anonymity but the suspect is not – I think there is something wrong here.
LikeLike
These kind of investigations take up lots of police time. The police are not really trained for them. There tends to be no evidence other than testimony. They have to prosecute a certain number of crimes in each category to seem credible and satisfy targets. So a case that has taken up lots of time is perhaps more likely to go to the CPS. The decision to proceed by the CPS is often a political one rather than one based on merits. Once in court, it’s easy to sway a jury due to the emotion attached and the concept of ‘best convict, in case we are wrong.’ Justice gets turned on its head at every stage. The police know that juries can be swayed, and their job is not justice but obtaining convictions, so they go ahead where they should not and stop investigations for the same reason.
Criminal justice procedures are nowadays just as ignored as Family Procedure Rules; it’s merely a matter of whether the anecdotal evidence can be adequately boosted by enough make-believe and innuendo to chance continuing. The same goes for other types of convictions, particularly domestic abuse and violence allegations, where even historical and reliable principals of self-defence are ignored when it suits. Only the most ridiculous DV prosecutions, that are so stupid they are monitored by the media, get the result they deserve, but still the false accusers walk free.
Deception detection technology is now reliable enough to use before continuing with investigations. Perhaps it is the only available solution.
LikeLike
Any large “protective” service will have trained their operatives into either believing all or believing none. Police, social services, courts will all have been trained to think in a certain way. Brainwashed!
This research throws into doubt and rightly so, the family courts system of the “balance of probabilities” which should never exist anyway. It’s guess work based on someone else’s opinion, who wasn’t there at the material time but by “weighing the evidence” could find you “guilty or not” but the family courts don’t like to say “guilty or not” and there is no punishment, but taking your kids is OK! I dispair! It’s akin to “the emperors new clothes” its all hype! Some people are really taken in by such rubbish and profited by it.
The quicker the general public knows about how the family courts operate the quicker the fiasco ends!
LikeLike
Spot on as usual, Dana. Couldn’t agree more.
LikeLike
Having been there myself with SS I thoroughly agree.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
Foster care kids, 17,000 of them, go missing in one year. How many never return?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35064228
10,000 unaccompanied refugee kids have gone missing after arriving in Europe.
http://www.guardian.com/world/2016/jan/30/fears-for-missing-child-refugees
900 asylum seekers go missing after arriving in the UK.
http://www.guardian.com/world/2015/dec/05/asylum-seeker-children-refugees-missing
There is certainly a child crisis!
Surely Judges are aware that Ofsted has stated 60% of local authorities are failing the children. Local authorities are always bleating on they can’t cope, not surprising as the number of kids sent into the care systen has reach the highest in 30 years. Throwing money isn’t the answer as North Yorkshire has bucked the trend and care protection plans are down, the lowest for 5 years. If they can do it, why not the rest. Judges could look for better alternatives than sending kids into care with the best being kids left at home.
A bigger crisis is looming and then what happens? The system, already flawed will break down completely and those who desperately need help won’t get it. It would be better to plan to reduce kids in care now and set about returning kids currently in care.
LikeLike
Everyone should watch “Your bleeped up brain” on channel H2 to show how the memory cannot be trusted. False memories can be implanted and innocently remembered as being true, as proved by General Patton & President Bush among other examples.
To illustrate how Bush’s memory had failed him, he believed he watched the first plane hit the first of the twin towers as it happened but in fact he was being filmed in a childrens classroom and the footage shows his Aide telling him of the Twin Tower atrocities.
If courts rely on people’s memories then perhaps they shouldn’t!
LikeLike
It is the role of the police to investigate alleged crimes. They are required to collect and collate evidence and should do so in an objective, impartial, and non-judgemental manner. Thereafter they must determine whether such evidence is sufficient to place before a Court for judges and juries to determine, on the basis of such evidence, whether the crime is proven or not. The person charged with the crime has the benefit in Court of a presumption of innocence until the triers of fact have made a contrary determination.
It is inappropriate for the police to believe or disbelieve the alleged victim, as to do so would seriously prejudice their subsequent investigation.
In regard to child sexual abuse, research have studies shown that in 96% of such instances the4 child is being truthful, so false allegations and `coaching’ are extremely rare. This is supported by other research into allegations of child abuse and domestic violence which has shown that 91% of such allegations are true. [e.g. Monash University – Thea Brown]. Of the 9% of such allegations which shown to be false, 55% are made by fathers and 45% by mothers.
It is difficult to understand how the mythology persists regarding false allegations of child abuse and domestic violence made in Family Courts. What probably occurs is that unproven allegations are misconstrued as false, because Family Courts “are not forensic bodies” [Chief Justice Bryan Australia] and do not have the statutory powers nor the expertise to c0nduct such investigations and only a small proportion [less than 25%] are investigated by the police/ child protection services.
Assertions by CAFCASS workers and court consultants on allegations of child abuse and domestic violence should never therefore be accepted as admissible in Family Law proceedings as they have neither the statutory powers nor the expertise to competently investigate such matters.
LikeLike