As you read the false rape news account below, please notice three things: First, the judge correctly honed in on the precise problem with the false claim: its effect on the falsely accused man. Too often we must listen to judges spewing political correctness about how rape lies hurt hypothetical rape victims. That is true, but such hurt is secondary to the injury inflicted on the primary victim of a rape lie. Second, notice that once again we are subjected to defense counsel's excuses stemming from the perpetrator's personal life. Do you think a newspaper article would print similar excuses proffered by counsel for a young rapist? Third, and most interesting: the false accuser "had no idea the English authorities would take the attitude they did." Specifically, she didn't know that rape lies are taken seriously (well, my dear, they usually aren't, but at least sometimes they are). Bingo! If it were well-publicized that false rape claims are taken seriously, I suspect we'd see far fewer of them. I would like to erect a sign in Times Square: "Making a false accusation of rape is a serious crime." I'm serious.
Here is the news article:
Waitress jailed for inventing sexual assault after sacking
A waitress at a fashionable London restaurant, Gema Revelles, has been jailed for nine months for inventing a sexual assault allegation against her gay boss after he sacked her.
Revelles, 21, made up the story because she was too ashamed to tell her family she was jobless. But her sister was so outraged at her apparent ordeal she insisted she tell police.
However, having ''started the ball rolling she didn't stop'' until it was too late, London's Southwark Crown Court was told.
Charles John-Jules, prosecuting, said unfortunately for the Spanish national she got her dates mixed up, reckoned without CCTV and was apparently unaware of her alleged attacker's sexual orientation.
The barrister said despite some of the inconsistencies being drawn to her attention she persisted with her story during a second interview.
According to Revelles - a Malaga ''hotel school'' student on a six-month work placement scheme to the City's Coq D'Argent restaurant - her ordeal began when operation manager Gerhard Jacobs tricked her into entering a downstairs office by claiming someone wanted to see her.
Mr John-Jules said she alleged once there he asked her ''to do him a favour''.
''She said she didn't know what that meant. He then moved towards her and placed his hands on her bottom. She says after she slapped him round the face, he put his hands on her shoulders and forced her down on her knees directly in front of him.''
She claimed he then pulled down his trousers.
''Revelles told the officer she punched him in the stomach and ran out of the office and told two female employees what had happened. But that account was not true,'' said the barrister.
Eventually, as problems with her story continued to mount, she admitted she had lied. Yet by that time a distraught Mr Jacobs had been spoken to by police.
Protesting his innocence, he told officers: ''Everyone knows that I'm gay at work and elsewhere.''
Revelles, of Maltby Street, Bermondsey, south-east London, admitted a single count of perverting the course of justice on August 4.
Wearing black trousers and a black jacket, she stood with her head bowed and her hands clasped in front of her as Judge Stephen Robbins told her: ''People who make false sexual accusations and cry rape, or, as in your case, a serious sexual assault, leading to individuals being questioned by police and/or arrested and sometimes remanded in custody, may expect to receive immediate custodial sentences because these sort of allegations are all too easy to make and very difficult to refute.
''In your case the allegation was somewhat less serious than rape, and as far as I can understand Mr Jacobs was not formally arrested, let alone remanded in custody.
"He was able to refute the allegations with the assistance of his colleagues at work, a combination of that and CCTV evidence, and he pointed out his own sexuality.''
The judge said while he accepted she first lied to her sister, ''thereafter not only did you substantiate your false allegations but you changed your story when confronted with matters by the police which tended to undermine your account.
''I bear in mind the massive effect this has had on Mr Jacobs, the shock and anxiety he suffered.
''I have come to the conclusion my public duty requires me to send you immediately to prison,'' he added.
George Grace, defending, said his client's problems began when her mother fell ill and she took time off to help her.
When she returned to work ''she was told she was not pulling her weight and had to go.
''Miss Revelles was angry she had not been given a chance to explain ... why she had taken time off.''
Having lost her job, she was then evicted from her flat and ended up staying with her sister.
''Her sister demanded an explanation for what was going on. Desperate, she came up with this unfortunate story.
''She started the ball rolling and didn't stop the ball rolling anything like quickly enough.''
Mr Green said the defendant now ''realised what she did was wrong, that it had a massive impact on Mr Jacobs and on the investigatory process and the process of justice as a whole.
''In addition, she had no idea the English authorities would take the attitude they did and believes in Spain nothing like the steps that were taken here would have been taken there in response to such an allegation,'' he added.
Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6399226/Waitress-jailed-for-inventing-sexual-assault-after-sacking.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
When law enforcement start charging false rape accusers...we will know the perversion is coming to an end.
Anon at 9:07: right. The comment that she didn't know the officials would react like this seems to lie at the heart of a lot of this nonsense. They aren't being punished, and they REALIZE they are not being punished. So when they ARE punished, as here, they are shocked.
I used to live in Spain, I can tell you for a FACT she is lying.
Spain is a catholic country, and rape is treated incredibly seriously, a man convicted of rape in Spain can consider himself lucky to eventually be released from prison covered in knife scars.
Anon
Speaking from the UK here.
Almost every week it seems a woman is imprisoned for making false rape claims.
The charge here is Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice.
From memory it can carry up to 7 years in prison.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/public_justice_offences_incorporating_the_charging_standard/
AfOR
My bad, the maximum tariff is life.
Perverting the Course of Justice
(Archbold 28-1 to 28-28)
The offence of Perverting the course of justice is committed when an accused:-
* does an act or series of acts;
* which has or have a tendency to pervert; and
* which is or are intended to pervert;
* the course of public justice.
The offence is contrary to common law and triable only on indictment. It carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and/or a fine.
The course of justice must be in existence at the time of the act(s). The course of justice starts when:-
* an event has occurred, from which it can reasonably be expected that an investigation will follow; or
* investigations which could/might bring proceedings have actually started; or
* proceedings have started or are about to start.
In (R v Cotter and Others [2000] TLR) it was held that 'the course of public justice included the process of criminal investigation following a false allegation against either an identifiable or unidentifiable individual.'
The offence of perverting the course of justice is sometimes referred to as "attempting to pervert the course of justice". It does not matter whether or not the acts result in a perversion of the course of justice: the offence is committed when acts tending and intended to pervert a course of justice are done. The words "attempting to" should not appear in the charge. It is charged contrary to common law, not the Criminal Attempts Act 1981: (R v Williams 92 Cr. App. R. 158 CA).
The offence of perverting the course of justice overlaps with a number of other statutory offences. Before preferring such a charge, consideration must be given to the possible alternatives referred to in this Charging Standard and, where appropriate, any of the following offences:-
* corruption: Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 and Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889;
* agreeing to indemnify a surety: s.9 Bail Act 1976;
* making false statement: s.89 Criminal Justice Act 1967, s.106 Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and s. 11(1) European Communities Act 1972;
* using documents with intent to deceive: s.173 Road Traffic Act 1988;
* impersonating a police officer: s.90 Police Act 1966;
* acknowledging a recognisance or bail in the name of another: s.34 Forgery Act 1861; and
* concealing an arrestable offence: s.5 Criminal Law Act 1967.
Perverting the course of justice covers a wide range of conduct. A charge of perverting the course of justice should, however be reserved for serious cases of interference with the administration of justice. Regard must be had to the factors outlined in General Charging Principles, above in this chapter and Charging Practice for Public Justice Offences, above in this chapter, which help to identify the seriousness of the conduct.
Before deciding to proceed with a charge of perverting the course of public justice you should consider whether the acts complained of can properly be dealt with by any available statutory offence, or any other offence mentioned in this charging standard. If the seriousness of the offence can properly be reflected in any other charge, which would provide the court with adequate sentencing powers, and permit a proper presentation of the case as a whole, that other charge should be used unless:
* the facts are so serious that the court's sentencing powers would be inadequate; or
* it would ensure the better presentation of the case as a whole; for example, a co-defendant has been charged with an indictable offence and the statutory offence is summary only.
Note that in (R v Sookoo (2002) TLR 10/4/02) the Court cautioned against adding a count of perverting the course of justice when the conduct could properly be treated as an aggravating feature of the principal offence. However, consecutive sentences may be imposed when the conduct is a separate and subsequent act, in which case a count of perverting the course of conduct should be considered.
The following are examples of acts which may constitute the offence, although General Charging Principles, above in this chapter and Charging Practice for Public Justice Offences, above in this chapter should be carefully considered before preferring a charge of perverting the course of justice:-
* persuading, or attempting to persuade, by intimidation, harm or otherwise, a witness not to give evidence, to alter his evidence or to give false evidence;
* interference with jurors with a view to influencing their verdict;
* false alibis and interference with evidence or exhibits, for example blood and DNA samples;
* providing false details of identity to the police or courts with a view to avoiding the consequences of a police investigation or prosecution;
* giving false information, or agreeing to give false information, to the police with a view to frustrating a police inquiry; for example, lying as to who was driving when a road traffic accident occurred;
* lending a driving licence to another to produce to the police following a notice to produce, thereby avoiding an offence of driving whilst disqualified being discovered;
* agreeing to give false evidence;
* concealing or destroying evidence concerning a police investigation to avoid arrest;
* assisting others to evade arrest for a significant period of time; and
* making a false allegation which wrongfully exposes another person to the risk of arrest, imprisonment pending trial, and possible wrongful conviction and sentence.
In deciding whether or not it is in the public interest to proceed, consideration should be given to:
* The nature of the proceedings with which the defendant was trying to interfere;
* The consequences, or possible consequences, of the interference.
A prosecution may not be in the public interest if the principal proceedings are at a very early stage and the action taken by the defendant had only a minor impact on those proceedings.
It is likely that perverting the course of justice will be the appropriate charge when:-
* the acts wrongfully expose another person to risk of arrest or prosecution;
* the obstruction of a police investigation is premeditated, prolonged or elaborate;
* the acts hide from the police the commission of a serious crime;
* a police investigation into serious crime has been significantly or wholly frustrated or misled;
* the arrest of a wanted person for a serious crime has been prevented or substantially delayed, particularly if the wanted person presents a danger to the public or commits further crimes;
* the acts completely frustrate a drink/drive investigation thereby enabling the accused to avoid a mandatory disqualification;
* the acts strike at the evidence in the case. For example, influencing a vital witness to give evidence/altered evidence/false evidence, or destroying vital exhibits or frustrating a scientific examination;
* the acts enable a defendant to secure bail when he would probably not have otherwise secured it;
* the acts strike at the proceedings in a fundamental way. (For example, by giving a false name so as to avoid a mandatory disqualification or a 'totting' disqualification: giving false details which might significantly influence the sentence passed); giving details which may result in a caution instead of prosecution);
* concerted attempts to interfere with jurors; attacks on counsel or the judge; or conduct designed to cause the proceedings to be completely abandoned);
* a concerted attempt has been made to influence significant witnesses, particularly if accompanied by serious violence;
* the sentencing powers of the court for an alternative offence would be inadequate.
AfOR
"However, having ''started the ball rolling she didn't stop'' until it was too late, London's Southwark Crown Court was told."
&
"The barrister said despite some of the inconsistencies being drawn to her attention she persisted with her story during a second interview."
Both of these seem to be way too common. Remember that women in NJ who just wanted to get her friends to stop beating her? Well, she had plenty of opportunities to stop the rolling ball, but she elected to persist in her lies, and now an innocent man languishes in prison.
Like that woman in NJ, the woman in this account also knew that the man had done nothing to her, yet she preferred to continue with her lies. How easy would it have been to have simply told the police that she did not have a sexual assault to report, but rather that she had been afraid to tell her family the truth about being fired?
Of course, being a modern empowered women, she saw her boss an just another expendable man, who could best serve her purposes by going to prison to allow for her to cover her shame. Nice!
But, that sentiment is all too common amongst modern women. And, as a society, we still come unglued every time a woman reports that she was raped.
Now, as AfOR tells us, some of this may well be related to borderline personality disorders (something I think could be applied to upwards of 90% of all women at some point in their lives), but even still, it is much more the product of years of creating a "perfect storm" wherein women are automatically believed (and any skepticism about her story suspended), men are automatically believed to be guilty (the normal legal presumption of innocence disregarded), society holds men as being less valuable than women, and deep-seated contempt we all hold against the (real) crime of (forcible) rape is allowed to boil-over, often with dire consequences for innocent men. And, to top it off, political correctness has stood as an obstacle to punishing women who commit such a heinous crime.
Thankfully, as we see in this story, that awful tide may be beginning to turn. Even if young women are ignorant of the fact that so many false rape reports before theirs have begun to garner the attention not only of law enforcement, but now journalists as well. The stories are getting out there.
Also, and again, thankfully, we see more and more women actually being punished for their crime of false reporting. We are also seeing that the costs to their victims are also getting some long overdue attention.
I take all of this a s positive sign. Ten years ago, one would seldom see any media account of a rape report being proven false. And, virtually no women found to be lying ever got punished for doing so (the very reason the Gema Revelles of the world think that they won't get in any trouble either).
But, as the stories are reported in the media, and women are charged and jailed, it creates a de facto precedent for others in both law enforcement and journalism to follow, emboldened to begin to speak the truth about the serious and seriously under-estimated scourge of false rape reports - often done for the "thinnest" of reasons.
It took years to create that "perfect storm" in which women were free to make false claims against innocent men with impunity; it will likewise take years to correct the problems. But, I believe we are starting to see progress.
Dazed and confused lying idiots like protesting that they didn't think that the authorities would take such a hard-line attitude towards their efforts to imprison innocent men, not only MAKE MY DAY, they tell a story of fundamental change. [That feminists like our resident trolls will also be pissed off is just icing on the cake]
She only got nine months.
May I remind all and sundry she will probably only serve half that, and probably in some cushy women's prison where she'll spend her days arranging flowers or stringing beads. Just what sort of a punishment is that?
She only got nine months.
May I remind all and sundry she will probably only serve half that, and probably in some cushy women's prison where she'll spend her days arranging flowers or stringing beads. Just what sort of a punishment is that?
You have to remember, once you have served a prison sentence, that's it in many ways...
When I say "that's it" I mean it stays on your record, it is a Criminal Offence to fail to disclose this when asked by an employer, and a woman doing time essentially means that her career in hospitality just died and went to hell.
Fact is she will be lucky to get *any* job.
Sure, it ain't as good as serving 5 years, but, any prison sentence carries on a LONG time after your release day.
AfOR
Quite brilliant article, one small fault though.
The judge did get a lot of thisgs right. However, he also still came out with teh teim all nonsense about how fasle rapes made it harder for real vicitms etc etc. See coverage here:
http://www.southlondon-today.co.uk/tn/news.cfm?id=37914&commentsent=1&bid=0
Anonymous - "She only got nine months.
May I remind all and sundry she will probably only serve half that, and probably in some cushy women's prison where she'll spend her days arranging flowers or stringing beads. Just what sort of a punishment is that?"
In this case, given that "...Mr Jacobs was not formally arrested, let alone remanded in custody.", I'd say that four and a half months of incarceration is reasonable, if not perhaps even a little harsh. [I say this ONLY because Mr. Jacobs appears to have emerged relatively unscathed]
Plus, it's something that WILL be on her record for the rest of her life. I don't know about England, nor if they have any criminal reciprocity agreement with Spain, but her in the States, a felony record disqualifies one from many career opportunities.
I thought this remark was telling as to the attitude women typically have about doing things that cause harm to men:
"Mr Green said the defendant now realised what she did was wrong, that it had a massive impact on Mr Jacobs and on the investigatory process and the process of justice as a whole." [Presumably, "Mr. Green" is Mr. George Grace, her defense attorney, and not some random guy the Telegraph reporter interview on the street - and I though my proof-reading sucked!]
Now that she's getting punished for doing it, it suddenly dawns on her that it was wrong. As Dana Carvey (as the SNL "Church Lady") would say, "Well, isn't that special".
I suppose that it's a least a little better than her not realizing it until after a religious conversion, after her victim had spent 4 years in prison - but, I digress.
Why can't women seem to figure out that falsely accusing people is always just plain wrong. If they can't seem to figure it out right before they commit to telling law enforcement, perhaps some jail time should be mandatory, just to help them see the light. Once they figure out that a few months in jail "sucks", it just might occur to some of them that it was what they were about to doom an innocent man to (and, often for a lot longer time).
She should have to register as a sex offender for LIFE as well.
Anonymous said...
" She only got nine months.
May I remind all and sundry she will probably only serve half that, and probably in some cushy women's prison where she'll spend her days arranging flowers or stringing beads. Just what sort of a punishment is that?"
" You have to remember, once you have served a prison sentence, that's it in many ways..."
" When I say "that's it" I mean it stays on your record, it is a Criminal Offence to fail to disclose this when asked by an employer, and a woman doing time essentially means that her career in hospitality just died and went to hell. "
" Fact is she will be lucky to get *any* job. "
AfOR
Oct 22, 2009 4:03:00 PM
Well she may be able to move, find and latch onto some man who will take care of her for the rest of her life and, she can hide her criminal past. How many men perform back ground checks on the women they are involved with? If she can manage to do this, being punished lighly and having a criminal record won't hurt her in the same manner as it does a man.
She definitely won't suffer the same way that falsely accused men suffer, even if they are exonerated on the front page. She won't suffer even a fraction of what falsely accused men across this country are suffering.
and will be suffering unless something is done, not something minor but something major.
" If it were well-publicized that false rape claims are taken seriously, I suspect we'd see far fewer of them"
Feminists will publicize this for a different reason...to point out the unfairness to the victim. (note that they would in fact refer to her as a victim.) So watch out what you ask for, you might get it (though as a slightly modified version).
Post a Comment