Police admit falsely arresting teen rape victim: "this is what happens when you lie."

worthyrd.jpg-pwrt2

A 17-year-old rape victim, treated with callous indifference and arrested by UK police who accused her of lying, has been awarded £20,000 in a settlement.

Hampshire Constabulary apologized for refusing to properly investigate the victim's complaint, and admitted liability for false imprisonment and assault.

The girl was attacked in April 2012, reported it immediately, and provided her clothing for forensic analysis. But police decided within two days that she was lying and threatened her, The Guardian reports, with charges of her own should she pursue the matter.

When she did so, she was arrested on suspicion of "perverting the course of justice," and was told by one detective that "this is what happens when you lie."

The police failed to test the evidence and, reportedly, were told by a supervisor to "fucking nick her."

"I was horrified," her mother told the BBC. "A woman comes forward and tells the police authority she has been raped: You expect them to do everything they can to put the rapist away."

The case only proceeded months later after an official complaint was made, prompting prosecutors to ask for thorough tests on the garments.

The attacker, Liam Foard, was subsequently identified. After denying any sexual contact at all with his victim, he was convicted and jailed for five years in 2013. But it's taken another two years—and a lawsuit filed under human rights legislation—for Hampshire Constabulary to say sorry.

In the meantime, one of the officers responsible for the girls treatment was given a written warning, and three others allowed to resign or retire before the investigation into their conduct could be completed. Ten other officers received "management action."

"Given that she had been raped, reported the matter to the police and now found herself under arrest and being accused of lying, this must have been a particularly traumatic experience," an internal review concluded. "Clearly, had the rape investigation been completed to the required standard, she would never have been arrested and interviewed."

Local police have issued statements promising it will not happen again.

"I would like to reassure all victims of sexual assault that we do take you seriously," Chief Superintendent David Powell told reporters. "We do believe you, we appreciate how hard it is to come forward to report these offences, we do not judge you and we are committed to ensuring a professional and supportive response. We are doing everything to ensure we never have an initial response like this again."

"I am appalled by the way the victim and her family have been treated in this case and would like to express my heartfelt sympathy to them," wrote Simon Hayes, Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire. "It is entirely unacceptable for victims of crime not to be listened to and taken seriously. I would like to reassure the public that since I have been in post there have been significant changes to the way sexual assault cases are handled by the Constabulary. These changes in procedure should mean that the series of events that led to this particular victim being re-victimised by the police and not receiving appropriate justice, would not be permitted to happen again in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight."

But the family's lawyer, Debaleena Dasgupta, says that without the Human Rights act, it would have been far more difficult to get justice.

"Many people wrongly assume the police have a legal obligation to investigate crimes," wrote Dasgupta in a press release. "However, the only way victims of crime can seek justice for these sorts of issues is using the Human Rights Act, which imposes a duty on the police to properly investigate very serious offences."

Notable Replies

  1. How long before someone -- some man, that is -- comes here to proclaim that while this is indeed a sad, sad case, women do lie sometimes, ya know! In fact, it's an epidemic, and if it weren't for the political correctness of the liberal media, we'd all know it!

    In the meantime, one of the officers responsible for the girls treatment was given a written warning, and three others allowed to resign or retire before the investigation into their conduct could be completed. Ten other officers received "management action."

    Looks like Slap on the Wrist is the preferred technique for punishing UK police too?

  2. If I do something way, way, way less unprofessional, immoral, and contradictory to my job I get fired with prejudice. It just doesn't make sense.

    I don't want heads on pikes, but every time I have talked with an officer their line is, "take responsibility for your actions". Shouldn't it go both ways?

  3. In addition to being "unprofessional, immoral, and contradictory to [their] job," though, this did positive harm. So though I don't dispute your right to exercise restraint, I think I'd prefer the heads-on-pikes option.

  4. If that were so, the officers responsible for this would be facing charges themselves. Talk about "perverting the course of justice".

  5. That's why you investigate, to find the truth. Sure anyone could be lying, but you look at the case, investigate and see what the facts are. In this case they seem to have done nothing. Even if 50% of rape allegations were in fact unfounded, don't you still want to solve the ones that are. I doubt that false rape allegations are all that common, just because the process of reporting a rape or sexual assault is never easy on the victim. In fact a lot of women do not report incidents for this reason. There probably are more unreported cases than fake ones.

Continue the discussion bbs.boingboing.net

6 more replies

Participants