Wife jailed for 'false retraction' of rape to appeal

Nevyn

This has be boggled and shows up how screwed up the legal system in the UK and the one here is. For a rape investigation/case to start a person has to press charges and then it moves forward. Given the length of the process and that it can take over 2 years for a case to get a courts date many victims don't want to re live it all again and in some cases the drop the charges for a range of reasons, not because it didn't happen but due to pressures or lack of support or just wanting the nightmare to be over.

This women pressed charges against her husband and due to pressure from family dropped the charges and tried to get the case dropped and was imprisoned for it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11727763

11 November 2010 Last updated at 06:35 GMT

Wife jailed for 'false retraction' of rape to appeal
Scales of justice The CPS said it had no option but to charge the woman and that sentencing matters were an issue for the court

A woman jailed for repeatedly making and then dropping rape charges against her husband is to appeal her conviction.

The wife, from Powys, was jailed at Mold Crown Court for admitting she had perverted the course of justice.

But she was cleared of making a false allegation of rape.

The Crown Prosecution Service has described the case as "extremely unusual in that the complainant actively worked to derail the trial".

Her solicitor, Phil Sherrard, told the BBC Wales news website that an appeal against her eight-month sentence has been lodged. His client has also applied to be released on bail

Meanwhile, Dyfed-Powys Police has said it has dropped the charges of rape against the woman's husband.

Montgomeryshire MP Glyn Davies has called for the woman to be released, saying he was "unhappy" about her sentence.

Earlier this week The End Violence Against Women Coalition said the verdict sent out a "chilling message" to rape victims.

This case was extremely unusual in that the complainant actively worked to derail the trial”

And the charity Rape Crisis said they were "outraged" a woman was being criminalised for choosing not to pursue her case.

Dyfed-Powys Police decided to investigate her for perverting the course of justice after she changed her mind several times during a rape inquiry.

During last week's hearing, prosecutor Simon Parry said she had made a 999 call in November 2009 claiming she had been raped six times by her husband.

But in January 2010 she said she wanted to drop the charges - although she still maintained they were true.

Detectives said they would continue with the prosecution and by 11 February the woman altered her statement once more, this time saying the original allegations were false.

"I've never known a case like this and we can't find any case law on it”

Phil Sherrard Defence solicitor

Phil Sherrard said it was at this time that proceedings against her husband were dropped.

When the woman was arrested and charged with perverting the course of justice, she said the rape allegations were true and the original retraction was false.

She told police her husband's relatives had convinced her to drop the charges.

A spokesman for the CPS at Dyfed-Powys told BBC Wales: "This case was extremely unusual in that the complainant actively worked to derail the trial, by first telling police she had made up her original evidence, and then changing her story again and saying it had been true.

"It was impossible to proceed with the case against her husband in these circumstances, and it was felt that the difficult decision to charge the complainant with perverting the course of justice was justified, particularly as substantial resources were used to investigate and prosecute the alleged rape and to provide support to the complainant.

"Having taken the decision to charge the complainant, sentencing matters are an issue for the court.

"Given the ongoing legal issues surrounding the case, it would be inappropriate for us to comment further at this stage."
I've never known a case like this and we can't find any case law on it”


He added that they were acutely aware of the difficulties faced by victims in reporting rape and worked hard to support complainants in giving their best evidence at trial.

Mr Sherrard, who is hoping to argue for her release at Mold Crown Court on Friday, said: "I've never known a case like this and we can't find any case law on it.

"We entered a not guilty plea on the false allegation of rape, which had been accepted.

"In other words, the Crown accepted they fully believed her claim of rape.

"This is a woman with no resources who is not familiar with the prison system."

Meanwhile, Glyn Davies MP, who described the decision as "strange".

He told BBC Wales: "I find it quite difficult to understand how this has happened and I feel pretty unhappy about it.

"It has been heard by a judge and gone through the legal system and I don't have all the information so I cannot criticise the decision.

"But I would like to see this woman released on appeal."

keane2097

Hold on a second now:

A woman jailed for repeatedly making and then dropping rape charges against her husband is to appeal her conviction.

Seems a bit ridiculous tbh.

ANXIOUS

I dont get it, whats wrong with that? She wasnt found guilty she admitted she had perverted the course of justice.

Emme

Why did she retract the charges - was she intimidated into doing so by her husband and others? That would concern me more than anything. The tabloids report this sort of thing frequently (not necessarily rape within marriage) and I often wondered were the victims intimidated into retracting their charges because such a small proportion of rapists actually get convicted.

This case will make it even harder for victims to report rape. I hope the woman in this case is released from prison. The irony is that if she were a rapist and had been charged she might not have been jailed at all.:mad:

Does anyone else think that victims who report rape are taken less seriously now than 5 or more years ago?

SugarHigh

We don't actually know if she was raped so all we have to go on is a woman repeatedly making accusations and then dropping them. Why didn't she try to get her husbands family convicted of intimidating a witness?

Nevyn

I don't see why you opened your post with at statement, why do men do that, seriously?
That sort of crap leads to victims not coming forward as they feel they wont' be taken seriously.

She can't get them done for that, it is up to the state's prosecution team to do that.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

well clearly he opened up with that because you can't just naturally assume that when someone says they have been the victim of a crime that they are telling the truth.

SugarHigh

Thaedydal wrote: »

I don't see why you opened your post with at statement, why do men do that, seriously?
That sort of crap leads to victims not coming forward as they feel they wont' be taken seriously.

She can't get them done for that, it is up to the state's prosecution team to do that.

You can't sacrifice "Innocent until proven guilty" just to make it easier for genuine victims.

metrovelvet

Until they reform rape accusation protocols there has to be leeway for this kind of thing to happen without the threat of a prison sentence for the rape victim.

Yes, technically she wasted the state's time and obstructed the course of justice, where it comes to rape trials the course of justice has its own obstructions like time lags, and a lack of laws surrounding the protection and well being of the victim, and until it redresses its own obstructions to justice in these matters it can hardly start handcuffing rape plaintiffs when they start prevaricating or withdraw altogether.

almostnever

Thaedydal wrote: »

I don't see why you opened your post with at statement, why do men do that, seriously?
That sort of crap leads to victims not coming forward as they feel they wont' be taken seriously.

She can't get them done for that, it is up to the state's prosecution team to do that.

It's not just men who believe in the importance of "innocent until proven guilty", thankfully.

Buceph

metrovelvet wrote: »

Until they reform rape accusation protocols there has to be leeway for this kind of thing to happen without the threat of a prison sentence for the rape victim. .

Reforming protocols, yes, reshaping how the courts operate, no. There are principals that the entire legal system is founded on that can't be abandoned.


In this case, the judge seems harsh. Surely he has the ability to sentence her to counselling, or community work that a support group could take charge of that would in essence be counselling. I think the guilty conviction sets the tone well enough without jail time.

SugarHigh

metrovelvet wrote: »

Until they reform rape accusation protocols there has to be leeway for this kind of thing to happen without the threat of a prison sentence for the rape victim.

Yes, technically she wasted the state's time and obstructed the course of justice, where it comes to rape trials the course of justice has its own obstructions like time lags, and a lack of laws surrounding the protection and well being of the victim, and until it redresses its own obstructions to justice in these matters it can hardly start handcuffing rape plaintiffs when they start prevaricating or withdraw altogether.

So someone should be able throw out an accusation and then withdraw it and suffer no consequence while the accused now has a rape accusation to his name that would have appeared in the local paper because it went to court.


Just because something can on occasion negatively affect a genuine victim does not make it wrong.

metrovelvet

Buceph wrote: »

Reforming protocols, yes, reshaping how the courts operate, no. There are principals that the entire legal system is founded on that can't be abandoned.


In this case, the judge seems harsh. Surely he has the ability to sentence her to counselling, or community work that a support group could take charge of that would in essence be counselling. I think the guilty conviction sets the tone well enough without jail time.

I agree that the principal of innocent before proven guilty cant be compromised. However, I do not think that if a victim changes their mind that they can be charged with false accusations or a prison sentence for withdrawing when the courts dont do enough to secure victims in the first place.

I do not think a sentence was appropriate at all and the judge should be penalised or brought under scrutiny for such a sentence.

SugarHigh

Buceph wrote: »

Reforming protocols, yes, reshaping how the courts operate, no. There are principals that the entire legal system is founded on that can't be abandoned.


In this case, the judge seems harsh. Surely he has the ability to sentence her to counselling, or community work that a support group could take charge of that would in essence be counselling. I think the guilty conviction sets the tone well enough without jail time.

I think jail time might be a mandatory sentence for this crime so the judge had no choice.

SugarHigh

metrovelvet wrote: »

I agree that the principal of innocent before proven guilty cant be compromised. However, I do not think that if a victim changes their mind that they can be charged with false accusations or a prison sentence for withdrawing when the courts dont do enough to secure victims in the first place.

I do not think a sentence was appropriate at all and the judge should be penalised or brought under scrutiny for such a sentence.

The judge was only following the law so unless you can point out where he wasn't then why should he be penalised?

metrovelvet

SugarHigh wrote: »

The judge was only following the law so unless you can point out where he wasn't then why should he be penalised?

He could have dismissed the case on lack of evidence or witnesses. Its not like rape victims get a witness protection program from their inlaws.

stimpson

metrovelvet wrote: »

I agree that the principal of innocent before proven guilty cant be compromised. However, I do not think that if a victim changes their mind that they can be charged with false accusations or a prison sentence for withdrawing when the courts dont do enough to secure victims in the first place.

I do not think a sentence was appropriate at all and the judge should be penalised or brought under scrutiny for such a sentence.

It's innocent until proven guilty. And it's an alleged victim.

You are talking as if the man is guilty in this case. Wasn't it only last year that an irish man was freed after years in jail for a false accusation?

padser

metrovelvet wrote: »

However, I do not think that if a victim changes their mind that they can be charged with false accusations or a prison sentence for withdrawing

I do.

If someone accused me of rape I want the opportunity to be found not guilty in court rather than have that person withdraw the complaint while still maintaining that it's true (which thankfully wasn't allowed to happen in this case).

If that person decides to admit that her original statement was a lie (which has happened in this case) then I think it's reasonable for her to receive a sentence of the same order of magnitude as the alleged crime would have carried.

We simply can't have false rape allegations being allowed to stand and tarnish people's good names, and there needs to be serious deterrents put in place to prevent them.

This case does just that.


Also I would point out - this individual was a serial offender - this wasn't a once off incident.

Wile E. Coyote

I think each case should be taken on it's own merit. The fact that she is 'repeatedly' making and dropping allegations of rape would lead me to believe that she didn't want things going any further because they weren't true.

Allegations like that stick with people for a long time and I think if your going to accuse someone of something as serious as that and then just drop the charges on more than one occasion there should be a punishment for it.

Mr. Presentable

metrovelvet wrote: »

I agree that the principal of innocent before proven guilty cant be compromised. However, I do not think that if a victim changes their mind that they can be charged with false accusations or a prison sentence for withdrawing when the courts dont do enough to secure victims in the first place.

I do not think a sentence was appropriate at all and the judge should be penalised or brought under scrutiny for such a sentence.

So you think it would be OK for me to accuse you of a heinous crime, make a sworn statement, watch you get charged and prosecuted, then, when it goes to Court I can change my mind and walk away leaving you with the stigma? Or do I misunderstand what you appear to be clearly stating?

Nevyn

SugarHigh wrote: »

We don't actually know if she was raped

IF you want to take that tact fine, but that aslo means we dont' know that she wasn't.
We do know how ever that Crown prosecution found enough eveidence to make a case and get it to court which is had enough with rape cases anyway esp rape in marriage.

Currently with such cases the charges have to be pressed by the victim for that much to happen but then they are but a witness to the crime which causes them to be messed around in a very crappy system which often means the charges are dropped due to the inefficacy of the system. To then turn around and penalise the person for dropping out of a ****ty system imho is wrong.

I do think that there has to be a lot of reforum in both the way charges are brought, cases are handled the wait time and societies attitude which has two different reactions to rape.

Buceph

metrovelvet wrote: »

He could have dismissed the case on lack of evidence or witnesses. Its not like rape victims get a witness protection program from their inlaws.

There was plenty of evidence. All of it her own admissions to the police. I have no doubt she was guilty of perverting the course of justice. I don't think she should be allowed get away with it, and that's why I believe the guilty verdict is correct. I do think it would be worth investigating whether he could leverage the rehabiliative side of sentencing to somehow benefit a women who has obviously had a tough time of it. The fact that she did have a tough time doesn't change innocence or guilt, but it is a mitigating circumstance that should be taken into consideration when sentencing.

SugarHigh

metrovelvet wrote: »

He could have dismissed the case on lack of evidence or witnesses. Its not like rape victims get a witness protection program from their inlaws.

Why would he gave dismissed the rape case? We don't know how much evidence there was for that case.

This was a separate case brought against her for dropping so many charges wasn't it?

Buceph

Thaedydal wrote: »

To then turn around and penalise the person for dropping out of a ****ty system imho is wrong.

The point is she didn't just withdraw the charges, something that happens quite a lot. She initially said she was raped. Then dhe changed her statement to say the rape didn't happen, then she changed it again to say it did happen.

I do think that there has to be a lot of reforum in both the way charges are brought, cases are handled the wait time and societies attitude which has two different reactions to rape.

I don't know what changes could be made that would help while still preserving the core principals of the legal system. If you have ideas on it, I do think it's an interesting topic.

IITYWYBMAD

Thaedydal wrote: »

IF you want to take that tact fine, but that aslo means we dont' know that she wasn't.
We do know how ever that Crown prosecution found enough eveidence to make a case and get it to court which is had enough with rape cases anyway esp rape in marriage.

Currently with such cases the charges have to be pressed by the victim for that much to happen but then they are but a witness to the crime which causes them to be messed around in a very crappy system which often means the charges are dropped due to the inefficacy of the system. To then turn around and penalise the person for dropping out of a ****ty system imho is wrong.

I do think that there has to be a lot of reforum in both the way charges are brought, cases are handled the wait time and societies attitude which has two different reactions to rape.

I think every right thinking individual (male and female) condemns rape. I also, personally, believe that in cases of alleged rape, a certain weighting should be given to the alleged victim, given the torment and invasive nature of the crime.

However, it's actually cases like this, that give the real victims of rape, a bad name.

The wife, from Powys, was jailed at Mold Crown Court for admitting she had perverted the course of justice.


Thankfully I live in a society where the presumption of innocence and Habeas corpus exist, and I would not change that for anything.

stimpson

Thaedydal wrote: »

IF you want to take that tact fine, but that aslo means we dont' know that she wasn't.

Sorry, but it's that attitude that shows why it's such a big problem. The man has not been convicted, but people still assume he's guilty because of the accusation.

We do know how ever that Crown prosecution found enough evidence to make a case and get it to court

Obviously much of their case depended on an unreliable witness. Again, it's presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

SugarHigh

Thaedydal wrote: »

IF you want to take that tact fine, but that aslo means we dont' know that she wasn't.

If she was raped it's up to her to prove it which she refuses to do and until she does the guy can only be considered innocent.

Nevyn

The fall out surround rape for the families, friends and community can be pretty stark which is why a lot of women don't report, or drop charges at many stages of the process.

Well what about the accused being allowed to take part in thier defense and cross examin the 'witness' as part of a rape/sexual abuse case? Should that part of the process be kept?

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/106725788.html

SEATTLE - After hours of tense negotiations, police took a woman into custody who had been walking along the roof of the King County courthouse, threatening to jump.

The woman is an alleged victim in a sexual assault trial and was threatening to commit suicide amidst the trial of the accused rapist, sources tell KOMO News.

The woman had been walking for hours on the roof of the King County Courthouse and a skybridge that links buildings in the courthouse complex, threatening to jump, before she was talked down by negotiators.

The woman is a 21-year-old alleged sexual assault victim in the child rape case of State vs. Salvador Cruz, and she was scheduled to be a witness later in the trial. Sources say the woman is one of several alleged victims in the trial.

The woman's mother had been testifying through most of Thursday morning. The accused rapist, who is the mother’s ex-boyfriend, is acting as his own attorney and was cross-examining the mother.

The 21-year-old became upset as the trial proceeded, sources said. She bolted from the courtroom, went through a door that was left propped open by a maintenance crew and out onto the roof.

Once on the roof, the woman texted the deputy prosecuting attorney in the case telling him she was going to jump.

Police negotiators began talking with the woman as she walked along the ledge and roof of the courthouse and the skybridge connecting it with other buildings.

After hours of negotiations, the woman allowed officers to come closer and hand her a water bottle. She then was taken into custody by police and is now safe.

Two entrances to the King County Administration Building were closed during the standoff, along with some downtown streets. All are now reopened.

SugarHigh

What was the point in posting that second case, have you given up on the first?

What legal reason do you have against the accused representing himself and then being able to cross examine a witness?

Buceph

Of course defendants should be allowed to represent themselves (it is unwise on their own behalf though.) And of course witnesses should be allowed to be cross examined. To abandon the right of someone to make a case for their innocence is ridiculous to the extreme.

The right to face your accuser, and have a trial in public is paramount. (And by in public I don't mean that anyone and everyone should be allowed watch the drama.)

IITYWYBMAD

Thaedydal wrote: »

The fall out surround rape for the families, friends and community can be pretty stark which is why a lot of women don't report, or drop charges at many stages of the process.

Well what about the accused being allowed to take part in thier defense and cross examin the 'witness' as part of a rape/sexual abuse case? Should that part of the process be kept?

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/106725788.html

The internet is full of examples of wrongdoings. The fallout from false allegations is also as stark.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1280926/Student-cleared-rape-emerges-second-man-committed-suicide-falsely-accused-woman.html

Zulu

Bad cases don't make good law.

Innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. ..and in a country where they have the death penality...

Nevyn

SugarHigh wrote: »

What was the point in posting that second case, have you given up on the first?

No it is another piece I have found today which I think shows up how screwed up the system is.

SugarHigh wrote: »

What legal reason do you have against the accused representing himself and then being able to cross examine a witness?

Witness intimidation.

Actually mods given the tenor and tone of the posts in this, might be better to move it to humanities.

metrovelvet

stimpson wrote: »

It's innocent until proven guilty. And it's an alleged victim.

You are talking as if the man is guilty in this case. Wasn't it only last year that an irish man was freed after years in jail for a false accusation?

No Im not. What are you talking about?

She was the prime witness to the alleged crime. Witnesses pull out all the time. Without witnesses you have no case.

Stercus Accidit

Extreme circumstances aren't justification for a bad policy. It is very telling that this thread is based on the assumption of guilt on the accused's behalf, when presumption of innocence or even the possibility of innocence are rejected, we get this thread.

I appreciate what the OP is saying, but to create a policy where accusations can be raised and dropped repeatedly opens up innocent people to abuse and destruction by the legal system, weilded by any individual willing to do so.

The justice system isn't ideal but in this case it has worked, either prosecute or do not, either tell the truth in your statement or do not, you cant have it both ways at someone elses expence and the expence of fairness in the legal process.

SugarHigh

Thaedydal wrote: »

No it is another piece I have found today which I think shows up how screwed up the system is.



Witness intimidation.

Actually mods given the tenor and tone of the posts in this, might be better to move it to humanities.

If someone was seen to be intimidating a witness in a court room do you really think it would help their case?

Your basically saying the right to defend yourself should be removed.

Emme

SugarHigh wrote: »

I think jail time might be a mandatory sentence for this crime so the judge had no choice.

Isn't jail a sentence for rape? If so why aren't more rapists jailed.

The woman concerned was accused of perverting the course of justice, but if she had been intimidated by her husband and others, surely they would also be guilty of perverting the course of justice and equally deserving of a jail sentence.

There would be far more of an outcry on the woman's behalf at this situation 10 or 20 years ago than there is today. This is chilling.

metrovelvet

Emme wrote: »

Isn't jail a sentence for rape? If so why aren't more rapists jailed.

The woman concerned was accused of perverting the course of justice, but if she had been intimidated by her husband and others, surely they would also be guilty of perverting the course of justice and equally deserving of a jail sentence.

There would be far more of an outcry on the woman's behalf at this situation 10 or 20 years ago than there is today. This is chilling.

The thing is they had proof of her perverting justice [what a paradoxical choice of words for this] but none of intimidation by the inlaws [very hard to prove if its done in a subtle not overtly threatening way].

Zulu

Thaedydal wrote: »

Actually mods given the tenor and tone of the posts in this, might be better to move it to humanities.

+1

Can this be done please mods?

Buceph

Emme wrote: »

Isn't jail a sentence for rape? If so why aren't more rapists jailed.

Mitigating circumstances, just like how I believe there are mitigating circumstances here and that she shouldn't get a jail sentence.

The woman concerned was accused of perverting the course of justice, but if she had been intimidated by her husband and others, surely they would also be guilty of perverting the course of justice and equally deserving of a jail sentence.

Because for that to happen the women would have to make a complaint to the police, or to whoever was in charge of the original case. Seeing as she's been proven to be a liar, and hasn't used the defence of witness intimidation it's obvious she doesn't believe that.

There would be far more of an outcry on the woman's behalf at this situation 10 or 20 years ago than there is today. This is chilling.

No. It's the legal system working properly.

Zulu wrote: »

+1

Can this be done please mods?

If we're going to be back seat modding, then I disagree. This thread was started by a well respected member of the LL, and now that she sees people disagreeing with her viewpoint, wants it erased from LL history.

LegacyUser

There are two injustices which are possible in any legal case, be it a small matter or a large one.

That an innocent person is charged with a crime they did not commit and is punished for it.

That a guilty person commits a crime and pays no penalty for it.

However we go about finding the truth and punishing those who deserve it, we will come up against one or the other of the situations above.

Our Constitution guaruntees us the right to our good name, so our law decrees that it is more important for innocent people to remain free than for the guilty to get what they deserve.

Yes, this means that there are men and women who rape get off scot free for lack of evidence. It also means that innocent men and women who have accusations made against them are shown for what they are, innocent.

It is an unjust, imperfect system. but it's the best of a bad lot.

Zulu

metrovelvet wrote: »

The thing is they had proof of her perverting justice but none of intimidation by the inlaws.

So the justice system worked!
The despicable thing here is the damage this cad of woman has done to every legitimate poor victim of rape. It's people like her that make it easier for guilty people to walk free. Her sentence is barley good enough for her tbh.

stimpson

metrovelvet wrote: »

No Im not. What are you talking about?

She was the prime witness to the alleged crime. Witnesses pull out all the time. Without witnesses you have no case.

You said innocent before being proved guilty. There is a difference. You also referred to her as a victim, the implication being that she had been raped, which has not been proven.

And she didn't just "pull out". She admitted to making false statements to the police.

metrovelvet

Zulu wrote: »

+1

Can this be done please mods?

Please do not move this to Humanties. Humanities is exclusively for debating and other forms of dialogue are not welcome. I would rather this stay in the LL.

Emme

Buceph wrote: »

Seeing as she's been proven to be a liar, and hasn't used the defence of witness intimidation it's obvious she doesn't believe that.history.

The victim wasn't proven to be a liar, she was proven to be perverting the course of justice.

The victim brought a rape case to court (no mean feat) and then for reasons only known to the defendent and the accused, retracted the statement several times. It has not been proven whether she was raped or not, so she has not been proven to be a liar.

Zulu

Buceph wrote: »

If we're going to be back seat modding, then I disagree. This thread was started by a well respected member of the LL, and now that she sees people disagreeing with her viewpoint, wants it erased from LL history.

who's doing the back seat modding? I supported a request, which would open the conversation significantly.

metrovelvet

stimpson wrote: »

You said innocent before being proved guilty. There is a difference. You also referred to her as a victim, the implication being that she had been raped, which has not been proven.

Ok I should refer to her as the accuser.

Stercus Accidit

metrovelvet wrote: »

The thing is they had proof of her perverting justice [what a paradoxical choice of words for this] but none of intimidation by the inlaws [very hard to prove if its done in a subtle not overtly threatening way].

Only one person has been shown to have been guilty of a crime, the others have had their cases quashed because the accuser had repeatedly changed their statements or retracted them.

If people were calling for better witness protection, I'd understand, better womens shelters, I'd understand, but calling for the right to make false or otherwise accusations repeatedly and withdraw them without consequence? Thats lunacy, what you are calling for would open the floodgates and squash the protections we all have under the law.

metrovelvet

Zulu wrote: »

So the justice system worked!
The despicable thing here is the damage this cad of woman has done to every legitimate poor victim of rape. It's people like her that make it easier for guilty people to walk free. Her sentence is barley good enough for her tbh.

It does not mean it has worked at all. We dont know if it has worked or not because we dont know if there is a rapist walking free or not.

Zulu

Emme wrote: »

The victim wasn't proven to be a liar, she was proven to be perverting the course of justice.

which kinda equates to the same thing no?

The victim brought a rape case to court

I think the victim was brought to court accused of rape, no?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Good points have been made about how dropping the accusation puts the innocent accused in an awful position, it also does sound like she repeatedly messed about with the police and they needed to do something

But the awful thing is the message that will be absorbed by the masses is that if you report a rape you are risking prison on some level.

Rape victims could end up thinking ''If I can't go through with this úntil the end I could end up in prison myself, probably best I just don't report it''

I know she did actually pervert the course of justice, but the circumstances actually make that more semantics than fact. Really think a suspended sentence would have been a much better option here.