She isn't "the prosecutor." She may not be an attorney working for the state, but she is the one who, after 8 years, went to police, and filed charges. That sets in to motion the process by which he was prosecuted, so she should be held accountable. And how can anyone accurately remember what happened 1 day 8 years ago? And wasn't it nice that he was forced to tell the world about his small penis? Seriously!
Bid for damages over false rape claim fails.
A FORMER Hampshire traffic warden cleared of rape has failed in a new legal bid to bring a £300,000 damages claim against his accuser for malicious prosecution.
Lawyers for Anthony Hunt, 66, had told three civil appeal judges that he wanted to “vindicate his reputation” by obtaining a judgment against the woman, referred to as AB, who had asked him into her home for a cup of tea and, he claimed, consented to sex.
But the Court of Appeal ruled that AB could not be sued for malicious prosecution as she was not “the prosecutor”.
She had not gone straight to the police and had not made it clear that she wanted Mr Hunt prosecuted – and even if she had done so, the intervention of the police and Crown Prosecution Service would have made them the prosecutors and not her.
Mr Hunt was convicted after a two-week trial at Winchester Crown Court during which he claimed he was incapable of rape because he had an abnormally small penis which, together with medical problems, meant that intercourse could only be a mutual act.
He was accused of raping the woman after he had finished work at the Fordingbridge Show in July 1995, although she made no formal complaint until eight years later.
He was released on appeal in December 2005 after judges branded the conviction unsafe, ruling that the trial judge had misdirected the jury.
No retrial was ordered because Mr Hunt, of Blandford St Mary, Dorset, had already served two years of his four-year prison sentence.
Mr Hunt’s lawyers had argued that, by giving a witness statement to Hampshire police in May 2002, and by agreeing to give evidence against him, AB became the prosecutor.
The case, believed to be the first of its kind, is regarded as potentially significant, not only for acquitted defendants, but also for women in the same position as AB, who might be discouraged from making complaints. The question of whether there will be a further appeal to the new Supreme Court has yet to be decided.
Link: http://mobile.thisishampshire.net/news/4701434
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
24 comments:
I have to say, the legal decision was right.
His accuser was not his prosecuter, because she did not file against him in civil court.
The prosecuter was the Crown Prosecution Service.
Pierce, as a lawyer yourself you have to see the reason in this judgement.
Mr Hunt should have sued his accuser, AB, in Civil Court, for everything from defamation on up.
I do not know why this is, but everyone assumes Civil Courts is kids stuff, while Criminal Courts are the heavyweight arena.
This simply is not the case, Civil Courts have vast powers, including the power of imprisonment, and anyone who finds themselves a defendant in a Civil Court to treat it as being no more serious than a magistrates court is in for a severe shock.
The legal point, or precedent, that Mr Hunt was attempting to make was doomed in Civil Court.
He *may* have had a chance if he had gone straight to Strasbourg and pushed under Article 6 of the HRA.
Unless he has be specifically barred from doing so, which is *incredibly* unlikely, Mr Hunt still has recourse through the Civil Courts against AB.
The remedies that a Civil Court can apply to a malicious false rape accuser are in fact quite dramatic and far reaching, AB could easily be ordered to surrender everything she owns, including her house, to the Court Bailiffs, to be sold in order to render compensation to Mr Hunt.
In addition, the Civil Court, if heard by a High Court of Circuit Judge, can *direct* the Crown Prosecution Service to investigate and prosecute AB for perjury and perverting the course of justice, the latter being a pretty much mandatory prison sentence.
It is entirely possible that Mr Hunt is merely laying the groundwork for a civil case, by proving that other avenues are closed to him.
AfOR
"And how can anyone accurately remember what happened 8 years ago?"
It's very easy to remember a significant event. You should read Grisham's "The Associate". Sometimes the episode is more compelling than the date it occurred. Nobody (perps nor victim) will forgot.
It's very easy to remember a significant event. You should read Grisham's "The Associate". Sometimes the episode is more compelling than the date it occurred. Nobody (perps nor victim) will forgot.
That's the trouble, if you are innocent then there is absolutely NOTHING memorable about any given day several years ago.
AfOR
Afor, both your comments are very well thought out.
Afor, no need to look over your shoulder if you've done nothing wrong, but I'll bet there are plenty of guys hoping the past doesn't catch up to them. The rules have changed. 'Boys will be boys' used to work. Not any more.
I've done nothing wrong, and I still got accused, so frankly your platitudes don't carry any weight.
Anon at 2:42: this entire site is devoted to guys who've done nothing wrong.
Thanks Pierce, you beat me to it.
Anon 2.42,
Please tell the Duke Lacrosse players, or the young men involved with Hofstra that there is no reason to look over thier shoulders, as they've done nothing wrong.
I'm guessing you are new around here. I might recommend a bit of reading through our site before you make a comment such as you did. Pierce is absolutely correct, this site is devoted to men who did nothing wrong, and got nailed by the judicial system for it.
"no need to look over your shoulder if you've done nothing wrong, but I'll bet there are plenty of guys hoping the past doesn't catch up to them. The rules have changed. 'Boys will be boys' used to work. Not any more."
Anon says.. what era of history are you alluding to "boys will be boys".
I grew up in the gender feminist dominated modern Era that says.."boys will be girls"
Break the gender feminist / law enforcement misinformation Alliance.
Anony: but I'll bet there are plenty of guys hoping the past doesn't catch up to them.
....................................
As opposed to plenty of women who have gotten away wholesale with falsely accusing, ruining the life and reputation of an innocent person - if not the wrongful incarceration or suicide of their false accusation- without the least whiff of concern.
The truth is, no one really gets away with evil.
They may think they did...but it catches up in the end.
The days of " a women would NEVER!!!" will end soon enough...
There's always the day of reckoning.
To Archivist--You must be a lawyer. Do you really think every man who posts here is innocent?
I've heard about the False Rape Society blog but I see no concrete evidence in the piece you wrote today that supports your claim that a woman falsely accused a traffic warden of rape.
If the DOJ depends on sites like this for their numbers, the results are bogus.
To Sgtmom--I have no idea what you're babbling on about,
I can agree that karma will slap evil in the face given enuf time
To Archivist--You must be a lawyer. Do you really think every man who posts here is innocent?"
How on earth would I possibly know that? My feeling is that rapists don't bother looking for a community of support; the falsely accused do. Rapists are cold-heartedly trying to beat the rap, and I can't, and wouldn't, help them do that.
"I've heard about the False Rape Society blog but I see no concrete evidence in the piece you wrote today that supports your claim that a woman falsely accused a traffic warden of rape."
I would not count that case as an officially "false" rape claim, for reasons I've written about many times. In talking about the prevalence of false rape claims, we should only include those cases whose outcomes we are fairly certain about. The man in this case should be presumed innocent, but the actual event should not be counted as either a rape or a false rape claim. But, of course, you would know that if you'd spend even a little time reading this website. I've written many times about why I believe that.
"If the DOJ depends on sites like this for their numbers, the results are bogus."
Thanks for the gratuitous insult. Nice to have feminists visit us (notice I didn't ban you?). I just explained to you that the case you cite is not one that we can be reasonably certain was false.camp. But the reality is, your rape feminist sisters and the sexual grievance industry include cases LIKE THIS ONE in their "for certain it was rape" camp. Honestly they do.
You would do well to spend several weeks reading the posts on this blog to learn the area a little better. You will understand a lot better if you ditch the Womyn's Studies chip on your shoulder.
A man, incapable of rape due to a medical condition, convicted for rape does a false accusation make.
Can he get compensation for this travesty? Nope.
That's the point of this post. To raise awareness.
Archivist--What is it with the new breed of MRA's banning everybody who disagrees? Long gone are the days of the Female Dissident in Glenn Sacks room. I contributed several articles and dodged plenty of bullets in heated exchanges, but Glenn never threaten to BAN me or anyone else for expressing honest opinions.
Do you consider me a threat?
Anon, I don't know who you are, so how could I consider you a threat? I merely contrast this site, which bans few people, with the typical feminist site, that bans approximately one half the population.
P.S. I suspect I know who you are anon, and as I've indicated previously, this site isn't meant to be a clearinghouse for every feminist grievance, with man-haters spewing misinformation and sprinking snarky hate speech throughout the comments of a multitude of posts. One of our feminist commentators insisted that her "facts" (which are not supported by objectively verifiable sources) were every bit as valid as ours (which are so supported). This advances nothing. Unfortunately, the vitriol has the effect of veering important discussion to the hate speech, and I won't have it.
So, if you want to have your comment deleted, why not try to insist that only two percent of all rape claims are false -- a stat long ago debunked and for which there is no evidence. That's just one way.
Anonymous said...
"no need to look over your shoulder if you've done nothing wrong, but I'll bet there are plenty of guys hoping the past doesn't catch up to them. The rules have changed. 'Boys will be boys' used to work. Not any more."
Anon says.. what era of history are you alluding to "boys will be boys".
I grew up in the gender feminist dominated modern Era that says.."boys will be girls"
Nov 19, 2009 4:54:00 PM
The same Era that made it illegal to be a boy/male
Anonymous said...
Archivist--What is it with the new breed of MRA's banning everybody who disagrees?
Nov 19, 2009 10:18:00 PM
At least feminists, even some from feministing and feministe can post comments here without having to register. Nobody can do such at their sites.
And at some feminist sites they screen what posts even go through to be posted. So your comment does not even get posted if they don't like it.
[One of our feminist commentators insisted that her "facts" (which are not supported by objectively verifiable sources) were every bit as valid as ours (which are so supported). So, if you want to have your comment deleted, why not try to insist that only two percent of all rape claims are false.]
Show me the link to that dialogue if it exists. No sister of mine would "insist" on the 2% without including a source so I want to see who said it and it what context.
Oh did you delete it? How convenient --
Anon,
We have better things to do, like posting more articles of lying scumbags who claim they were raped, when they weren't. If you want those posts so bad, feel free to look around. We haven't deleted any of Jeana or Atom/GG's old posts.
Enjoy.
So you really did ban Jeana Atom and GG from this site. Who else got a pink slip?
Post a Comment