9sep01 letter from Catt to "Sentencing Advisory Panel".

 

Home Office

Sentencing and Offences Unit,

50 Queen Anne's Gate,

London SW1H 9AP

0171 273 4000 Fax: 2489

Direct Line: 0171 273 3875

21 March 2000-03-25

Ivor Catt,

121 Westfields, etc.

Dear Mr. Catt,

SEX OFFENCES REVIEW

Thank you for your letter of 16 March 2000 in response to mine of 7 March.

The Home Office keeps all of the criminal law under review to ensure that it is robust, fair and appropriate. Although there is no specific policy consideration in government being given to the issue of false allegations, individual cases that are brought to our attention are considered very carefully and will inform the development of policy. As we have said before it is the purpose of the criminal justice system to test allegations of crime on the basis that the defendant is innocent until proved guilty.

It is the responsibility of investigators and prosecutors (i.e. the police and Crown Prosecution Service respectively) to be satisfied that the allegations are proper before taking a case forward. The purpose of every criminal trial is to test the prosecution evidence, and the defence will be able to cross-examine the witness for this purpose. In Crown Court cases, it is for the jury to assess the credibility of any witnesses for the prosecution when reaching their verdict. If, in any particular case, the possibility of a miscarriage of justice arises as a result of a false allegation ahich has led to a conviction, this would be a matter for the Criminal Cases Review Commission. I enclose a leaflet giving further information about the work of the Commission.

I believe that we have now done all we can to answer your queries on this matter.

Yours sincerely,

[signed] Su McLean-Tooke,

Sex Offences Review Team

 

I emphasise the section from the above letter; "…. there is no specific policy consideration in government being given to the issue of false allegations …." It took me six months to extract this statement from people who invited me to be part of a reference group so that I could contribute to the development of future legislation. Moxon, Tooke's boss, told me she wanted "constructive dialogue", but I had to descend to the level of repeating my single question for about the fourth time in writing, in words of one and two syllables, to extract this vital piece of information.

In contrast to the above letter, see my writing in the latest issue of "Ill Eagle", which I edit;

"Our past chairman John Campion summarised The Law Commission (1966) Reform of the Grounds of Divorce. The Field of Choice. Law Com No. 6. HMSO in this way; 'The Law Commission feels .... that it is false allegations that provoke the hostility and that any attempts to defend himself or his children are the consequence of venting his anger in retaliation for such allegations. They find this 'paradoxical' since perjured evidence is merely a verbal device for obtaining the divorce.'

"We need to remember that in the past, divorce court officials more or less openly connived in the perjured story of the divorcing man spending a dirty night in Brighton in order to enable his wife to obtain a divorce. Thus, the divorce courts have a tradition of conniving in perjury, so the fact that judges today welcome perjury by wives is nothing new.

"The idea that false allegations are an essential component in the smooth running of our secret family courts, and are merely a metaphor to validate the expropriation of fathers, is a crucial concept for those trying to understand the mechanics of our family courts, and the central role played by false allegations, and why perjury by mothers must not, and will not, be punished. It also explains why these courts are secret, and why they are more hostile to totally blameless divorcing fathers, who force court officials to connive in fabricating charges, which they do not enjoy doing. Even judges, barristers and solicitors, other things (i.e. their fees) being equal, prefer to be honest.

"A barrister pointed out to me that if he used legal aid to defend a divorcing man against false allegations, he might never again get legal aid funding from a feminised Legal Aid Board This explains why your lawyers will betray you, and put on that blank look when you try to interest them in the horrendous, false allegations being made against you."

- Ivor Catt, part of Editorial, Ill Eagle, March 2000, p3

 

Family courts are distinct from criminal courts. However, the use of false allegations to lubricate procedures (= expropriation of fathers) by judges in family courts will be influenced by and will influence the behaviour of those same judges hours later in the criminal court, and vice versa. A witch-hunt climate has been created by anti-social radical feminists and those they control or those who fear them, which includes our judiciary, which degrades all aspects of our courts, and all types of court. I will now presumably have to spend six months to a year extracting from those same (or other) government officials who are paid out of my taxes, the confession that nobody in government studies false allegations in our family courts, either.

Given the climate explained above, it is obvious why so many innocent Irishmen were jailed for decades, and many more innocent victims will be jailed in future. The expense of pressuring (see Home Office Research Study No. 196, for instance) the police to increase their "success" rate and on the judiciary to increase their conviction rate and conviction percentages is enormous, both in prison costs and also, of course, in the total devastation of the innocent victims' lives. Radical Feminism has created an evil empire.

- Ivor Catt, 25march00.

 

 

To Betty Moxon

From Ivor Catt 16mar00

You told me that Jack Straw wanted "open government". I hear of "Joined up Government". Similarly the Citizen's Charter.

The Tooke letter to me of 7mar00 (copy enclosed) does not address the question, which I will now repeat in words of one and two syllables, except for the word "allegation", where I fail.

1. Who looks at the problem of false allegations? If no one, please say so.

2. If someone, then who? If more than one person or group, then please define one or more key persons or groups. Ivor Catt

cc Straw, Pollard, Seddon, Melanie Phillips, Christine Stewart, Home Office, 50 Queen Anne's Gate, London SW1H 9AT

To Betty Moxon

From Ivor Catt 1mar00

The Tooke letter to me of 18feb00 (copy enclosed) does not address the questions in my 8feb00 letter (copy below).

I would refer you to your saying to me at Leicester 10sep99 that you wanted "constructive dialogue".

I believe you are able to understand the key issue. Perhaps you could start by answering my "Second question" (below). ;

Second question.

It is now up to me to determine whether

a) Moxon has wrongly excluded part of her remit, and so blighted the work of her "Sex Review Team, Sentencing and Offences Unit", or

b) Where in government the problem of false allegations is being investigated.

c)Alternatively, I might get (or Moxon might get for me) an authoritative statement from government that it is the government's view that false allegations have no bearing on the planning of future legislation on sex offences within the family.

Action BM............I ask Betty Moxon which of the above, a, b, or c, is the correct way forward. She is well placed to help us at this point Best wishes, Ivor Catt

cc Straw, Pollard, Seddon, Melanie Phillips, Christine Stewart, Home Office, 50 Queen Anne's Gate, London SW1H 9AT. 1mar00

Ivor Catt, 121 Westfields,

St. Albans AL3 4JR, England.

(01727 864257 +44 1727 864257

email ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk

website www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/

8feb00

Betty Moxon, Sex Offence Review Team, Room 253 Home Office,

50 Queen Anne's Gate, 0171 2733000

London SW1H 9AT

Dear Betty Moxon,

A review of Sex Offences

I attended your Leicester conference on 10sep 99. When invited to the Home Office one day seminar "Sex Offences Review: Abuse in Family Units", 10sep99, I immediately noticed problems, including the failure to mention false allegations in the preceding literature. I quote from it as follows;

"Any consideration of sex offences raises important questions of both social policy and legal policy. A key principle of the review is to be open and inclusive, and to seek the knowledge of those who can contribute from personal experience and professional expertise, as well as those who hold strong moral and political views on the issues. In order to draw in as wide a spectrum of opinion as possible, the review will be holding a series of conferences and seminars. [There were 4 seminars with a total of 200 attending. - IC]

"The review of sex offences is concerned with the offences and defences that make up the substantive criminal law. The review is not looking at issues of evidence and procedure, which have been, and continue to be, the subject of considerable recent work and discussion. [my ital. - IC]"

I have the following questions for Betty Moxon, Home Office, Sentencing and Offences Unit;

First question.

Action.BM....................I ask Betty Moxon,

Home Office, for full information as to who is doing this work, and where the discussion is on evidence and procedure. (Has Betty Moxon, or rather, has the Home Office, enquired of AAFAA, tel. Hillary Seddon 01635 202433, and other organisations concerned about false, criminal allegations? Hillary's brother was falsely accused by his step-daughter and spent two years in jail. The High Court threw out his sentence, and he came out of jail last month. His business is destroyed, and he is bankrupt. There is no compensation for him.)

Second question.

It is now up to me to determine whether

a) Moxon has wrongly excluded part of her remit, and so blighted the work of her "Sex Review Team, Sentencing and Offences Unit", or

b) Where in government the problem of false allegations is being investigated.

c)Alternatively, I might get (or Moxon might get for me) an authoritative statement from government that it is the government's view that false allegations have no bearing on the planning of future legislation on sex offences within the family.

Action BM............I ask Betty Moxon which of the above, a, b, or c, is the correct way forward. She is well placed to help us at this point

Yours sincerely, Ivor Catt

cc Kerry Pollard MP cc Jack Straw, Home Secretary.

 

Whiston et al. draft minority report re Leicester meeting sep99 22may00 version.

1/. Rape - an awful crime

Rape remains, in our view, the most profound of assaults because it violates a person's dignity, personal rights and even a person's sexual identify.

Once it was regarded as a fate worse than death, but with the advent and widespread adoption of equality is this still true? If equality is to really mean equality why are we harking back to Victorian concepts of retribution in the name of violations of a maiden's honour ?

While we may deplore the fact, today one third of girls under 13 years of age have lost their virginity and by their 16th birthday the figure has risen to 50%. Is it right that the state retains a proprietary interest in virginity ? Or should we move into an era advocated by some feminists of treating rape as a physical assault upon another person ?

Today, human rights are expanding at ever-greater rate and in every direction. The 20th century saw English Law embrace the notion of Natural Justice. For many decades we've seen the ascendancy of "the personal is the political". Today there is no humans body part or activity that is unmentionable thanks to tampon adverts and the AIDS scare. The old stigma culture has been brushed aside.

But if we truly live in an egalitarian society then shouldn't justice demands that the accuser stand up and say "I accuse". Why should we guarantee lifelong anonymity to both the accuser and the malicious accuser but not to the accused before she or he is found guilty ?

If on the other hand we accept that the stigma of rape remains potent then we can no longer deny that anonymity for men accused of rape is essential for justice and a just society. Women are no longer defenceless thanks to men and science. DNA now overcomes the lack of witnesses' ploy once used so often. Wives can charge their husbands with rape so make anonymity nonsense.

The present Gov't announced its intention to hold a review of sex offences during the passage of the Crime and Disorder Act in June 1998. The review was to be composed of a steering group made up of officials, lawyers and "advisers" and an external reference group. The terms of reference were to provide coherent and clear sex offences; to protect individuals especially children and the vulnerable; enable abusers to be punished and to be fair and non-discriminatory in accordance with ECHR. The Home Office review fails the on all these tests.

Background

New Labour's pre-election Manifesto (1996) pledged that "greater protection will be provided for victims in rape and serious sexual offences trials and for those subject to intimidation including witnesses". Almost fortuitously in 1996 and then again in 1997 a rape case involving extended cross examination made national headlines.

In 1997 the Gov't came under pressure to quickly set up working group. It was said to be very important to seek opinions and views on issues that needed to be addressed.

Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, announced in June 1997 the setting up an "interdepartmental" working group to undertake wide-ranging views. The working group 1st met in Aug 1997 and thereafter on a monthly basis.

"Speaking up for justice" a 250 page publication was a product of that inter-departmental working group (Home Office, June1998). During its compilation the inter-departmental group wrote to 84 organisations, inviting them to submit written comments. All were female organisations.

Not one men's group was invited.

The claim at the time was that the review would be "wide ranging" and truly comprehensive.

The veracity of this view is borne out by the uni-dimentionality of its contributors.

In Nov 1998 the Home Office sponsored a seminar entitled "Boys, Men and Fathers". Again, no men's groups were invited. Those attending represented only women's and feminist views. Angela Philips, who according to the feminist magazine Red Pepper is a "leading feminist", gave the keynote speech.

For some considerable time now we, as a men's organisation, have endeavoured to be admitted into the policy formulation circles of Gov't. Every single application has been rebuffed except one despite precise guidelines that specifies that civil servants must call for our inclusion (Policy Appraisal for Equal Treatment, Nov 1998). We were accepted at a late stage into the Review of Sexual Offences - not exactly our first choice - nonetheless we must thank the far sightedness of Mrs Betty Moxon (Home Office) for complying with the Whitehall directive the for the opportunity to participate.

2/. Why a Minority Report ?

As members of the Home Office's Govt External Reference Group we are unhappy with the manner and direction the review of sexual offences appeared to be progressing.

We cannot at this point in time know what the proposals (due for publication in June 2000) will contain or its recommendation to Ministers - nor which options they will convert into new laws.

However, we can reveal some of the options offered to the member so the External Reference Group. We can also draw attention to the present mind set within civil servant circles. We can thus make predictions of what it may include and the reasons why.

Our concern was initially prompted by, amongst other things, the total absence from the discussion of false allegations and its possible implications for men. In our other work we had earlier noted that false allegations of domestic violence, sexual harassment and child abuse were increasingly being used by ex-wives to guarantee custody of children and the seamless transfer of home ownership in divorce cases. Even the mere hint of an allegation of any form of violence made any defence futile.

The main focus of the Home Office (HO) Review of Sexual Offences seminar held in Sept 1999, was to reduce the chances of the accused, men, from slipping through the net.. To achieve this, it was suggested, definitions could in future have to be expanded into a catch-all framework.

The premise for the review rested almost exclusively on the notion that the law was archaic, inefficient and needed modernisation. By implication this was hindering the conviction rate of sex offenders.

It was assumed by everyone attending the seminar that the main purpose was to raise the conviction rate. By amending the present laws the primary obstacle between the levels of "reported" sexual offences (including rapes) and convictions would therefore diminish.

At first we too almost fell for this very plausible approach. It was only because we represent men's civil rights that we challenged the ethos when the plenary session divided into 4 'workshops'. With 3 delegates attending we were able to have a delegate in 3 out of the 4 workshops.

During our debriefing after the seminar it became apparent that the seminar had been so structured that we were, in effect, merely being asked to rubber stamp what had already been pre-ordained elsewhere. This can be validated by comparing the pre-conference papers with the post-conference written Report prepared by the Home Office.

Quite independently, and unbeknown to each other at the time, our delegates in the workshops raised the question false allegations. In every case the issue was dismissed without discussion. Yet the review was charged with investigating "offences and defences that make up the substantive criminal law". We failed to press the point at the time for we had no idea of the extent of the problem we were raising with the Home Office officials organising the seminar.

Only much later, and after much delving into statistics, did the full horror become apparent. For example, few people realise that in Britain today there are 2 men jailed for life but for whom the Home Office have no category of offence listed against them (see Appendix A ; HO Table 1.6 "Population in prison under sentence by offence group and length of sentence". Row 24: Offence not recorded. Sentence : Life. June 1999).

The illogicality of some of the proposals caused us great concern both at the meeting and for days afterwards. Not least was the matter floated before delegates that incest should in future be termed, or prosecuted, as a rape offence. There was a suggestion that this would make it easier to obtain a conviction. This procedure also the added bonus that whereas the stigma is shared equally between the female and the male in incest cases the proposed changes, if ratified, would mean the entire stigma would fall onto only one - the male.

Sexual offences, of course, also include child abuse but the factual assertion that women perpetrate child abuse sexual and physical was slapped down. Every efforts seemed only directed into how to trap and deal with male sex offenders. Females perpetrate up to 85% of all physical child abuse and up to 35% of child sexual abuse. Most child murders are either mother or a mother's new boyfriend related (NSPCC, Creighton, Michele Elliot, BBC Panorama). These inconvenient facts were not in the script, at the Sept meeting, and were stifled accordingly.

Another illogical (or at least self-contradictory) notion floated before delegates was the concept of expanding the crime of incest to include non-blood relatives. The raison d'être for incest is that the State wishes to avoid miscegenation, defectives and the birth of cretins. Despite our grave misgivings we were assured that this new concept was essential if moral values were to be maintained and the vulnerable protected in the looser family structures, ie alternative family lifestyles, as presently advocated by opinion formers. The hypothesis that many teenage daughters were promiscuous and that precocious girls could initiate sexual intercourse with an older man totally escaped consideration (see teenage pregnancy figures, ONS).

This could mean that a boyfriend of a divorced woman, with teenage daughters, could be charged either with incest or rape if he had sexual intercourse with one of her daughters with, or without, mutual consent. The Sept seminar programme asked, "Would an offence of 'abuse of trust' be a better way to catch looser family arrangements ?" It reveals that the definition of the family, of father and stepfather was lost. The discussion drifted towards the idea that someone (a woman) who was dependent on another could be sexually abused (by him). Taking it to its logical conclusion we countered the proposal by suggesting that the only way to avoid imprisonment was for a man who married his lover's 16 year old daughter was to send the daughter out to paid employment if he was to have legal sexual intercourse with her. Since then we have seen financial dependency expanded to include domestic violence towards women and/or the withdrawal of financial support.

Gender neutral policy making was repeatedly emphasised but we feel the bias against one gender is here self-evident. Conversely, prosecutions of women for having sex with under-age or young boys are, invariably, of course rarely pursued.

There was also the hint that 'oral sex' could also be made an indictable rape offence. But the strict interpretation of rape (actual sexual penetration) would seem to make nonsense of such a suggestion.

It was not until after the seminar that we identified the minutely small figures for incest. Table A shows (amongt other things) the publicly published figures for incest (183 in 1997). However, Table B (provided only after specific requests) shows the real underlying figures and the number of actual prosecutions and convictions (42 in 1997). The two tables convey two very different pictures. Why the reader may ask, is so much committee and civil service time being absorbed by such a minute sector of offences ?

Table A. Notifiable Sexual Offences and Offences of Robbery RECORDED [*] by

Police. Table B 2.16 HO (England & Wales).

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Incest 511 516 471 435 389 344 484 316 185 157 183

Gross indecency

with a child 831 871 1279 1063 1147 1158 1280 1512 1287 1215 1269

Unlawful sex

- under 13 312 283 300 304 315 253 268 275 178 171 148

- under 16 2699 2552 2471 2140 1949 1563 1443 1446 1260 1261 1112

 

Table B. Sexual offences - Home Office Statistical Directorate.

1985 1989 1991 1996 1997

Incest with a girl under 13 yo Cautions 3 11 13 4 7

(Sex Off Act 1956) Prosecutions 5 88 80 26 14

Convictions 57 100 68 19 19

Incest – Others Cautions 16 23 16 8 12

Prosecutions 65 52 37 13 12

Convictions 68 61 57 20 20

Incest inciting Girl under 16 Cautions 2 0 0 1 3

(Crim Law Act 1977) Prosecutions 1 3 1 2 7

Convictions 1 5 3 0 3

(1997 only) Total Convictions. 42

Total Cautions 22

Sub- total 64

Total Prosecutions 33

3/. Politics of rape

From the Home Secretary, Margaret Jay, Paul Boateng, Lord Steve Bassam, right down through the civil service the view is that our present laws are archaic and, ipso facto, ineffective.

If the low conviction rates were products of archaic and ineffective law then that views was dispelled in no uncertain manner by the succeeding seminar in Oct which dealt with prostitution and pimping.

Those judges at that Oct meeting made it very plain that in their view the present law was flexible enough and could be construed widely enough to cover most, if not all, contingencies.

This robust rejection of the proposals immediately placed a question mark over the plausible reason for reform given at the Sept meeting.

Rape, we are constantly told, in going up. Gov't ministers (Margaret Jay, the Women's Unit etc) make dire warnings and 'feed' journalists selected research studies and survey results. They promise legislation. Women are told to be alert at all times. Is it any wonder, therefore, that women are getting ever more frightened ?

The same propaganda hysteria can be found surrounding domestic violence. The pubic is told that "1 in 4" women have or will experience it. Yet Home Office study 191 says it exists in only 4.2% of the population. That report shows that it is young and single people of both sexes, below the average marrying age, who constitute the bulk of offenders. HO 191 finds men suffer as much DV as women but in it's conclusions only emphasises the 'plight' of women because it is said they are more likely o be frightened than men and more likely to report their fears to researchers.

Home Office sources have stated that rape is Britain's fastest growing industry and only 6 in 100 reported rapes end in conviction (Daily Mail, 2/7/99). But that has nearly always been the claim (see Sunday Times, 16/3/97). Clare Dyer's article, Daily Telegraph (15/5/91), revealed that, according to HO sources, 'reported' rape had risen 300% since 1979. In HO study 196 a similar dramatic claim were made and again that women reported felling frightened.

What no newspaper prints is that the quoted research is sloppy and suspect. What no one realises is the probability of being raped is the about the same as being in a post office during an armed robbery using shotguns.

We were therefore very pleased to see HO statistics questioned in the Daily Telegraph, Sunday Times (Feb 19th and 20th), LM magazine and other formidable publications.

More recently there has been the proposal floated to journalists and then immediately denied by Home Office sources, that men accused of rape will in future be deemed guilty and have to prove their innocence in court.

What the Gov't isn’t telling us is that the new proposals could see children, under 18, making up 25% of those convicted for sexual offences (see US Census, Appendix B). The Sexual Offences Act 1993 already allows boys under 14 to be charged with rape. The most likely victims of any further crack downs on sexual offences are likely to be the already under- privileged. Gov't hasn't told us that the most likely growth area in these crimes will be amongst the poor whites, Blacks and ethnic communities. The least able to defend themselves, life's underachievers and the under-employed will be the first casualties of any Middle Class reform. The "Underclass" - those already excluded from Blairs's Britain will be further excluded. Studies in the US shows they will overwhelmingly come from fatherless families where the probability of becoming an adult rapist is 14 times greater.

Male rape

Rape is always perceived by public and politicians as a crime only perpetrated against women by men. Women's activists believe they have a near monopoly on the subject. But rape is not gender specific. Figures for female rape are overshadowed by the huge numbers of rape, sodomy and buggery committed against men. A total that is nearly always never quoted.

Rape is no respecter of gender orientation. Heterosexual men and homosexual men can, and are, raped in large numbers. (Appendix BZ). Recent consideration of Section 28 has perhaps distracted us from this fact. Being a male rape victim is perhaps even more difficult to come to terms with for the victim. To begin with whom do you tell ? Where are the trained officers and the victim support centres for men ? Figures for the UK are based on small sample sizes and could be be misleading. But in the USA studies began long ago. The Christian Science Monitor reported that, "More men are raped than women" (Overflowing Problems, Aug 1990). Wooden & Parker reported that in one Californian penal institution surveyed, with a prison population of 2,500 men, 80% were heterosexual, 10% were homosexual and 10% bisexual. 14% of the prison population had been pressured against their will into sex - either sexual assault or raped. (Men Behind Bars, 1982).

"It is estimated that 1m or more men are raped".- Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics,1990.

4/. An awful crime - lets get it right this time.

Rape, as we have stated at the very outset, is in our opinion so awful a crime that getting it half-right or pandering to lobby groups is no longer acceptable.

"Half-right", like half-baked ideas, brings only misery. It has meant that many men are locked up for 5, 7 or even 25 years for crimes they did not commit. Within the last few months

Ray Burnett is just one man among many. Sentenced in 1986 to 15 years he was released only a few months ago. He like many others was not eligible for parole because he would not 'confess' to a crime he did not commit (see Appendix C).Perversely then, innocent men serve twice as many years in prison as guilty ones ( see also HO 196 page38, "I think we all regard a plea of guilty …. as deserving an even greater discount …." - a sentencing judge).

The odium heaped upon rapists by society and fellow male prisoners is such that they have to be segregated for their own safety. This demonstrates that men at all levels in society take a very serious view of rape and it is not the monopoly of female advocists.

Rape is often compared with murder in its seriousness and traumatic effects. We suggest that most men (and women) would actually prefer to be falsely accused of murder than falsely accused of rape. The reasons are obvious.

Subconsciously we all know that if we were charged with murder (and we were innocent) the jury would give us the full benefit of the doubt. But in rape cases the jury is not so pre-disposed. As someone falsely accused in a rape trial we would soon realise the prosecution need not prove matters "beyond all reasonable doubt".

Rape charges, like no other charges, demolishes a man's right to live in civilised society. It wrecks his life and his ambitions. It destroys his marriage and ends for ever any contact with his children. He is rendered unemployable. Long after the victim of rape has recovered and is getting on with her life the accused man is still paying the price.

For a victim of false allegations this is particularly onerous and perverse.

The public is in sympathy with this view. A jury, of men and women, recently awarded £400,000 by way of compensation to Mr Garfoot who had been falsely accused of rape by a female co-worker, divorcee Lyn Walker.

Trade unions too are at last beginning to see the 'bigger picture' and take an interest. The teacher's unions, in particular, are most concerned about the level of suicides, early retirements and cases of mental depression caused by false accusations of impropriety.

5/. What are the figures ?

Firstly, impressions gained from newspaper that "At present fewer than 10 per cent are convicted" (The Times) or that only 6 in 100 reported rapes end in conviction (Daily Mail, 2/7/99) must be corrected. In fact, the conviction rate of those charged with rape is approximately 50% for the year 1997 (599 out of 1,209. (See Fig 1). These are rape where hard evidence s available.

Fig 1. Rape Conviction rate 1985 - 1997 (HO).

Secondly, Sexual Offences account for about 0.6% of all crimes and of this rape forms just one small sector. This percentage has been fairly consistent over a 10 - 15 year period. The number of allegations of rape, 6,281 (1997) should be seen within the context of the many millions of crime incidents each and every year. Of the 6,281 reported rapes only about 1,200 have enough substantial evidence to bring them to trial (see Fig 1). And of these 1,200 cases, 599 result in a conviction (a ratio closer to 50% than 10%). This does not mean that in the remaining cases the offender is unknown. On the contrary, approximately 90% of alleged offenders were known to the victim and 80% of alleged offences occurred within the victim's or the accused's home (HO study 196). So can all these reported incidents be rape in the accepted sense of the meaning ?

"Consent" is bound to be the "most common defence" especially when "stranger rapes" are at an all time low and accusations that cannot be substantiated are at an all time high. In fact, according to UN statistics, the international incidence, and therefore conviction rates, for rape have fallen year on year for the last 20 years. But there are no congratulatory column inches praising men for the lowering of that particular statistic. SEE WOT **

Only if you choose to include 'false accusations' of rape will the conviction figure fall to around 10% - but then one has to comprehend that one is measuring events that, in reality, haven’t happened. This is what has occurred in Home Office Study 196, A Question of Evidence. Far from being a statistical enquiry HO196 is an exercise in personal research, by Jessica Harris and Sharon Grace, sponsored by the Home Office (page xiii is revealing).

In the UK the number of rapes recorded by police are shown in Table C. Rape is a 'Notifiable Offence' and the gross figure for recorded crimes does not include those alleged cases that are later found to be false, untrue, unsubstantiated or malicious. Sometimes this gross figure is refereed to as the 'reported' number, though this is confusingly interpreted and freely interchanged in many reports (see Appendix D).

Table C lists "reported" rapes, ie claimed, against rapes where there is sufficient evidence for the police to take the claim seriously and go to trial. The Red markers between 1988 and 1989 dates indicate the date rape become aggressively politicisation.

Table C. RAPE.

Country / Year 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

UK - England & Wales 1040 1094 1015 1243 1170 1225

Come to trial * 409 429 421 396 491 564

Country / Year 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

UK - England & Wales 1068 1336 1334 1433 1842

Come to trial * 426 543 453 454 569

Country / Year 1986 1987 1988 || 1989 1990 1991

UK – England & Wales 2288 2471 2855 || 3305 3391 4045

Come to trial* 593 649 799 930 914 914

Country / Year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

UK – England & Wales 4142 4589 5032 4986 5759 6281

Come to trial * 933 892 940 1065 1107 1209

Source: 1975 - 1980 UN Statistics, 1985 -1997 Home Office Statistics

"No-crimed" ( 80% ? ).

Home office study 196 explains that rapes can only be "No-crimed" by police when "the complainant retracts completely and admits fabrication". No crime accounts for 25% of al cases in HO study 196. Therefore "No-crimed" cases can be treated as prima facie claims that are false and / or malicious.

Some accuser feel unable for some reason to comply with the strict terms set out by the Home Office and admit that the crime was fabricated and or the evidence the false. Where this fears exists false allegations are termed "NFA " or no further action. Together "No-crimes" and "NFA's" account for over 50% of reported apes (see below).

25 % were "no-crimed" ie complainant retracts and admits fabrication.

31% where ‘no action taken’ (see below).

11% where no suspect was identified.

7% resulted in an acquittal of the accused.

8% were discontinued for lack of evidence by the CPS.

82%

NB. These figures are despite an increasing degree of political pressures on police forces and the CPS to

comply and prosecute as many cases as possible, exerted by both recent Gov'ts.

The thrust of Gov't is to address the apparent and ever-widening gap between rape claims and the number of rape cases coming to trial. This is the alarmist picture politicians would like us to accept.

It is a central feature in A). Living without Fear, B), the HO Review of Sexual Offences C). Home Office Study 196, A Question of Evidence, D). Speaking up for justice (HO), not to mention the Women's Unit, and are all Gov't publications (see Fig 2).

The target in Home Office Study 196 is the perceived attrition rate between "reported" rapes and convictions. "Reported" rapes include those that are false whereas "recorded" offences are quite different. Rapes, as with domestic violence, occur far more frequently amongst the young and the unmarried. This is where the public is frequently misled. If one disregards those claims that are not founded in fact, then the popularly listed figure for rapes more than halves (Fig. 1)

What Fig. 2 actually represented is a departure from reality in matters concerning rape. In the final analysis one is forced to conclude that if rapes have increased so much, and the offenders are known to the victims then it follows that the "come to trial" total should have tracked alleged claimed rapes - but this has singualrly failed to happen. So we are left looking elsewhere for a viable explanation.

Fig 2. Rapes:- 1975 - 1980 and 1984 - 1997 series. HO. (England and Wales).

It would be more accurate to call the discrepancy between rape claims and come to trial (Fig.2) as a "Credibility Gap". It is a problem the HO has so far tackled on an ideological rather than factual basis. Unfortunately, this is a too simplistic an approach.

6/. Date Rape

Date rape has a dubious pedigree and the myth is perhaps best exploded Kate Finnigan's book "Lip Service". As a US feminist commenting on the phenomenon of US studies highlighting date rape she ably demonstrates the dubious nature of the questions and the bizarre interpretation of many college campus surveys that use small sample sizes and that transforms unwanted kissing or petting into being described as date rape.

From the same surveys it is clear that boys are at far more risk of date rape than girls but their side of the coin in never, or rarely, presented.

That type of so-called rape is a far cry from the traditional image of rape and does a disservice to real victims of rape and women in general.

If we remove the contentious date rapes from the equation we are left with rapes that in all probability happened. If that is the case then it doubtless leaves us with a far less cluttered picture of the problem. From here we can almost certainly build more constructively and positively.

Figures prior to the creation of "date rape" give a hint of the real levels and trends in rape as a crime. If we view International figures we can perhaps better detect - even if one country has a traditionally higher incidence - a truer level and identify when a rapid increase ocurs or begins to get out ofline.

Table D. International Reported Rapes.

Country /Year 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

UK - ENGLAND 1040 1094 1015 1243 1170 1225

UK - SCOTLAND 287 330 334 330 307 306

NETHERLANDS M M M 3959 4003 4158

ITALY 1849 1872 2532 2366 2950 1844

GREECE 554 526 577 530 561 508

FRANCE 1589 1489 1531 1631 1695 1886

FED REP GER 6850 6979 6725 6598 6576 6904

UNITED STATES 56,093 56,730 63,022 67,131 75,989 82,088

Source: United Nations.

Note that it is only the USA, with its leading role in re-defining sexual offences that shows any significant upward trend. All other nations show a relatively stable situation. The above figures are not as accurate as we should like, as they were compiled before the implementation of standardisation. This problem has been overcome to a large extent by the publication last year of "European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Statistics" (See Fig 4).

Table E. Rape - offences reported per 100,000 of population

Country /Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

UK - Eng & Wales 6.7 7.9 8.1 8.9 9.8 9.6 11.1

UK - Scotland 6.5 6.3 6.9 6.7 7.7 7.9 8.7

Netherlands 8.9 8.9 8.9 9.8 10.0 9.1 9.2

Sweden 16.5 17.0 19.5 24.7 20.6 19.3 18.2

Norway - - 9.0 10.0 9.2 8.4 8.5 9.7

Italy 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.7 2.0

Greece 1.9 2.4 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.2 1.7

France 8.1 8.9 9.3 9.7 11.3 12.6 12.3

Germany 8.1 7.3 7.8 7.9 7.5 7.6 7.6

Source: European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Statistics (Oct 1999) Table 1.B. 1.5. ( page 45).

It is worth noting that figures from 'liberal' countries such as the UK, Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands contrast sharply with other nations and cultures such as Italy, Spain and Malta that could be described as more patriarchal. Sweden, acknowledged world-wide for its more relaxed attitude to sexual matters generally, can be seen to have an rape incidence rate that is approximately 100% greater than the England and Wales

If all sexual offences (actual and recorded) are re-combined, ie aggregated, and then plotted we may be able to cross-check the above proposition, ie reported rapes and date rapes, as one group and all other sexual offences (including rape) as another. This has partly been done in Fig 5 (below).

The present UK position (toward the bottom of Fig 5) is compared with the US and the new of rape reform proposals may brings us ever closer to the US situation.

Fig 5. Sexual Offences, 1980 to 1997, with projections to 2000.

 

"US sexual abuse reports" follow a unique pattern possibly indicating some fashion or legislative changes. They rise rapidly and then fall equally suddenly (103 rising to 159 before falling to 78). Over the same years "US Reported Rapes" rise only marginally from under 40 in 1980 to just over 40 in 1999. "US Rape Conviction" closely tracks reported rapes. Thus Sexual Abuse Reports cannot be said to be related to rape even in a country with stricter Rape Shield laws than those in the UK.

The US figures show a 50% ratio between reported rape and convictions in 1980 (as per the UK). But by 1999 the ratio has altered from around 22:38 to 30:43.This was also the situation prior to 1980 but by 1986 the number of reported rapes was out of proportion to rape convictions. (We have chosen to use "UK Rape Trial" figures because on this scale 'convictions' would not be visible on the this graph. (See also Table C & Fig 1). Meanwhile, the prison population in the US has expanded excessively bearing mind that US rape arrests have been constant at around 17 per 100,000 from 1980 to 1999. The number of inmates (shown as the second line from the top) would seem disproportionate to the number of convictions though is does move in sympathy with reports and convictions (see 1996). The UK with a population one fifth that of the US has a reported rape level fast approaching the US figure for Rape Arrests, though this must be a gross figures prior to acquittals and mistaken identities etc. Comparing the US Rape Arrest figure with US Rape Reports a ratio of approximately 50% is evident. This isn't seen in the UK scenario, which would lend support to the hypothesis that something is radically flawed with in the present UK regime. What is apparent bearing in mind the population sizes is that the number of rape trials in the UK is correspondingly one-fifth the number in the US. Moves to increase that ratio would compromise the level of justice we presently enjoy.

Meanwhile in other countries, e.g. Japan, Italy, Germany, Norway and Greece convictions and reports are negligible, static or falling (Fig. E). Crowding seen at the foot of Fig 5 is more clearly displayed in Fig 6 where the International trend can be more clearly seen together with the Japan, Italy, and Greece trend line. The overall the international picture as indicated earlier is at odds with the US experience and we should be wary of adopting legal changes from the US that may be unhelpful to the situation and indeed exacerbate maters. It is not idle to speculate on the effect upon the UK. Canada and the USA both founded on Common Law have been traumatised and should provide a warning of what to avoid.

Fig 6. International Comparisons. Sexual Offences, UK, Greece, Japan and Italy. 1980 to

1997 (with projections to 2000). A sub-analysis of Fig 5. [Source: US Census Bureau].

7/. False allegations of rape

There is the fear that the desire to "drive up" rape convictions figures may be at the heart of moves to incorporate Oral Sex, Necrophilia and Incest into an all embracing category of rape. (Guardian 14/4/00 Annex XZ). At a time when there is a sustained effort within the ONS (Office of National Statistics) to desegregate statistics this would appear to be a step in the wrong direction. If the boxer Mike Tyson has to receive special dispensation as an alleged convicted rapist would Pres. Clinton. in or out of office, be refused entry to the UK ?

The preceding graphs demonstrate that it is becoming increasingly more difficult to explain trend lines as shown in Fig 2 that rise almost meteorically when other indicators expected to follow in sympathy fail to do so.

The net result of the tend to obfuscation by aggregation will be to hinder future policy makers, professionals, social workers, and social scientists in their analysis of the frail human condition.

Unfortunately it is far too early to calculate the knock on affect. Of these changes however we do know from FBI sources that up to 33% randomly tested men who were in prison convicted of rape offences had DNA that failed to match the crime scene (Newsweek, 11/01/93, pp 64).

Ten years earlier in 1983 the F.B.I.'s Behavioural Science Unit's study on False Allegations conducted in 1983 of 556 rape investigations, a total of 220 of these reported rapes turned out to be false. Over one fourth of these 556 turned out to be hoaxes.

Charles McDowell, PhD has been called "probably the world's leading expert on false rape accusations." He is an experienced Air Force Criminal Investigator and he has stated that falsely accusing a man of rape is a crime as reprehensible as rape itself and that the former happens about as often as the latter. In one survey he said, "To my considerable chagrin, we found that at least 60 percent of all the rape allegations were false." In the study of 1,218 cases that were initially investigated as rapes, 460 were proven rapes, 212 were disproved allegations, and 546 cases remain unresolved.

The "disproved allegations" criterion meant the 'victim' ultimately admitted that the allegation was a hoax. This is equivalent to 'No-Criming' and the "remain unresolved" category must be equivalent to NFA (no further action) in the UK. (Appendix ZZ).

The following table (Table 5) entitled "False Allegations of Rape in the Military Community" was compiled by Charles McDowell.

This is of particular relevance in that it is based on research conducted before the politicisation of rape in both Europe and the US.

Table 5.

Motivations given by women (%) who acknowledged they had made false accusations of rape:

F B I %

Spite or revenge 20

To compensate for feeling guilt or shamed 20

Thought she was pregnant 13

To conceal an affair 12

To test husbands love 9

Mental/emotional disorder 9

To avoid personnel responsibility 4

Extortion or failed to pay 4

Scared of S.T. Disease 3

Others 6

----

100%

Interestingly, having shown this table to practising Police Surgeons in the UK, with daily experience of rape victims, none have contradicted its categories and general percentages. Some have indicated that the first two groups, in their experience, account for not 20% each but 30% each. A fuller UK survey is currently underway.

We shall, of course, publish the results as they become available.

8/. The victim of rape. [ under constrction ]

Any victim of rape can today expectto receive a sympatheic receton at all of Britains police stations. Specal suites with approiately trained ofeiers have been funded fro many years.

But one victim is still not catered for - the male victim of a rape assault.

The public always percives

But what about man who is a victim of false allegations. ? annex X

 

*******************************************************************************

31/8/01

To:- Home Office

Dear Mrs Moxon,

RE: Sexual Offences Review.

Just as I couldn’t let last year close without drawing your attention to what was increasingly making its way into the headlines of broadsheets and tabloids, namely false allegations and false evidence, (my letter Dec 30th 2000), so I feel compelled to write in regard to the treatment meted out to Mr. Neil Hamilton.

I think you will agree that his high profile case again demonstrates the need for the Home Office to look urgently into the aspect of false allegations in a far more serious and competent manner and not, as in the past, all too lightly dismiss the problem.

We brought this matter to your attention in 1999 and nothing more makes our case, detailed in our Minority Report, than the shambles surrounding events leading up to the situation that Mr and Mrs Hamilton then found themselves in. The measures we proposed then would have avoided the embarrassment and subsequent debacle experienced by the police.

It is most fortunate - if that word can ever be applied in such a situation - that Mrs Hamilton was named as a co-accused. It would, as in the majority of cases, have been considerably more difficult for Mr. Hamilton to vindicate his reputation had Mrs Hamilton not also been named.

We would be most interested to learn of your reaction to the recently unfolding events, the perjury, the potential for ‘interested parties’ behind the scenes, and how the Home Office plans to avoid a reoccurrence. Some of the answers are, of course, detailed in our Minority Report and you may like to make use of our recommendations listed there when future legislation is being contemplated.

This problem is not going to go away so we would be pleased to know how it is viewed within the Home Office and to learn how you interpret the events. There may come a stage, as we predicted earlier, where your department or a branch of it will face such punitive damages that the whole edifice and staff will be affected.

Our offer of informal talks and off the record discussions still holds and we trust we can look forward to a positive reply.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Whiston

Chairman.

cc Mr. N. Hamilton