Rassam Ali – falsely accused
I continue to compile cases of false allegations of rape and sexual assault. I am confining attention to UK cases. It’s looking like there will be around 130 or so, without going back very far in history, and that’s before I add in cases involving celebrities and politicians, which I will treat separately. My intention now is to do more than just compile the case histories (there are compilations elsewhere). Since there are so many it is meaningful to extract data from these cases. For example, what proportion of them involved failure to disclose evidence or failure of the police to gather evidence? (A lot). What was the chief source of exculpatory evidence? (I can tell you now: CCTV and social media). How frequently did the prosecution offer no evidence – either at first or subsequent trials? Was the false accuser prosecuted? How often did cases involve serial false accusers? How much prison time was served before exoneration? And so on. It’s coming.
In due course I will also have something to say about ‘victim’ compensation.
But for now…
On the BBC Radio 4 “Today” programme on 18/1/18, the DPP, Alison Saunders, was interviewed about the rash of failures of disclosure in recent rape cases. Sarah Montague opened with the simple direct question, “Is it possible that there are people in prison today because of failures of disclosure by the police and CPS?”. Alison Saunders replied, “I don’t think so because of the safeguards which are in place”.
One can immediately assert, with confidence approaching mathematical certainty, that the DPP’s reply was false.
Actually it is statistically inevitable that innocent people are imprisoned, irrespective of the problem with disclosure, unless you are silly enough to imagine the courts are virtually infallible. The UK prison population is about 95,000 in round terms (the figure of 85,000 more familiar to some is for England and Wales only). The number of people sent to prison annually happens to be a roughly comparable figure, perhaps slightly larger at a bit above 100,000 (because whilst some prisoners are serving long sentences of several years, roughly half are inside for less than six months). With your best rose-tinted spectacles on, would your faith in British justice allow you to believe that miscarriages of justice occur in as few as one case in a thousand? Even if this optimistic presumption were correct there would still be about 95 innocent men in prison, and perhaps 5 innocent women.
But taking account of the problems with disclosure and police procedures generally, the rate of incorrect convictions is certainly far greater than one in a thousand, especially in sexual assault cases. This becomes abundantly clear when one has read over 100 case histories – and not merely because of the number of miscarriages of justice exposed, but because of the generic problems the case histories reveal. They demonstrate endemic practices which skew the proper operation of justice, especially in cases of sexual assault.
These poor practices go beyond failure by the police or prosecutors to disclose evidence. It is also failure by police to even collect evidence. Time after time in the case histories it becomes painfully clear that the accused – or his friends, relatives or defence team – have to prove his innocence – and have to set about finding the evidence themselves to do so.
And this is not new. I quote at length from a 2006 review in the Telegraph by Alasdair Palmer of an historic sex abuse case, that of falsely accused Anver Sheikh who was convicted in 2002 of offences alleged to have occurred 20 years before that. The title of the article is “If two people accuse you, then you are guilty. They get compensation, you get jail“. Note that this piece pre-dates Yewtree and Savile. It exposes multiple systemic weaknesses in the judicial processes particular to sex offence cases,
“The system for dealing with accusations of sexual abuse is a disgrace. It has manifest failings that are known to lead to wrong verdicts but which remain uncorrected, and which continue to send innocent men to prison.
Chris Saltrese is a solicitor who has handled many appeals for those accused of sexual crimes. It was not his original area of legal expertise, however. “I started as a commercial lawyer,” he explained to me, “an area of law that is considerably more lucrative than this one. I ended up handling cases of alleged sex crimes only because it became obvious to me that there was an injustice of colossal proportions taking place.” Mr Saltrese believes that there are “certainly scores, and very possibly hundreds” of men who have been convicted of sexual crimes who are rotting in prison with no prospect of release, but who are not guilty and should never have been sentenced.
These men have all been convicted on the uncorroborated allegations of people they knew 10, 20, sometimes even 40 years ago, and whom they have not seen since. It seems incredible that, in English law, such unsupported allegations should be enough to get a man sent to prison for a decade or more. But that is the present situation. Thanks to the steady erosion of the rules of evidence governing sexual offences, culminating in decisions by the Law Lords in 1991 and 1995, a defendant can face multiple allegations at the same trial. None of those allegations need have any corroboration; each, considered on its own merits, may be insufficient to suggest sexual abuse took place, but the effect of the Law Lords’ rulings has been that together, multiple allegations are, in law, enough to prove not just that the abuse happened, but that the defendant was the perpetrator.
How could England’s most senior judges come to insist on a rule of evidence so transparently unreliable as that? It is a question to which only they know the answer. Their underlying assumption had to be that allegations of sexual abuse should be accepted as true, even if there is no evidence to support them. The result is that the burden of proof is on the accused to prove he is innocent, not on his accusers to prove his guilt.
People are regularly being convicted of sex crimes because that dangerous principle has been embedded into our law. The situation is made worse because of the way the police collect evidence in “historical abuse cases”. Knowing that multiple allegations can produce a conviction, they attempt to trace all former residents at care homes where abuse is believed to have taken place, and to then ask if they have any recollections of abuse.
Police interviewers do not always take “No” for an answer. They justify multiple visits and interviews of the same individual on the grounds that they need to “build a relationship of trust with the witness”, and that the “trauma of the event will lead many to deny it at first, and only later to be able to admit what happened”. Such interviews are not video recorded or even taped by the police as a matter of course. As a consequence, it is impossible to identify whether or not they have “coached” witnesses.
Police officers can also point out to the people they question that there are financial advantages to making accusations which lead to men being convicted, as victims of sexual abuse are entitled to compensation. Care homes are liable for misconduct by their staff and their insurers will not defend claims for compensation when the alleged perpetrator has been found guilty in the criminal courts. The average compensation pay out is in the region of £20,000, but can go as high as £100,000.
The combination of financial incentives for making allegations, and rules for evidence which do not require those allegations to be corroborated by anything except other, similar allegations, is a recipe for injustice.”
Returning to Alison Saunders’ blasé claim that there are no innocent men in prison, it is abundantly clear that these systemic practices will have led to far more miscarriages of justice than those which have been proved to date. The cases which have come to light are those in which someone – the accused himself, a friend or relative, or his defence team – have succeeded in finding exculpatory evidence, and have also succeeded in securing an appeal or retrial. But proving a negative is intrinsically difficult – and not everyone has the competence or the luck (or the money) to succeed in proving innocence. With more than 12,000 men in prison for sexual offences, the number of innocent men in prison must be at the very least several hundred. I’m now inclined to believe it is probably in the thousands.
To close, I review below the case of Rassam Ali from 2016. There is nothing special about this case – it just happens to be the last one I looked at today. It’s a typical case.
Rassam Ali, 26, the owner of a dessert bar, was sentenced to 3 years in prison for sexual activity with a child (a 14 year old girl). In prison he was beaten by other inmates who thought he was a paedophile. But the police investigation was botched (at the most favourable interpretation) having failed to examine a raft of exculpatory evidence.
A few months before the allegation was made, Mr Ali had told off the girl in question over an incident in his store.
Police admitted in court they had not examined CCTV from the shop on the night of the alleged incident or from council cameras outside. They also failed to speak to neighbouring businesses about whether Mr Ali had shut early that day as was alleged, and did not search Mr Ali’s home for the ‘silky striped underwear’ the girl said he had been wearing. The police also failed to check the complainant’s Facebook history which showed she attempted to add him as a friend despite her not telling police this in her interview.
But of particular concern is how the police dealt with one of the key witnesses in the case, another 14-year-old girl. The complainant had claimed that this friend had also been propositioned by Mr Ali and that she had said on various occasions that he asked if they had boyfriends, whether they would come back to the shop when it was closed and asked both whether they would perform oral sex on him. Despite the girl being both a key witness in the case and a potential victim, when officers originally spoke to her they made no note of the conversation.
In fact this witness had originally said she did not wish to get involved. But the police left a card with the 14-year-old girl telling her to get back in touch with them if she did wish to say anything. Following Mr Ali’s trial and the guilty verdict, the girl came forward to the defence team and said she wanted to tell the truth. She provided them with a video interview in which, lawyers for Mr Ali told the Court of Appeal, undermined the complainant’s account in more than a dozen key areas. This included her saying that Mr Ali was ‘always polite and never said anything to upset anyone’, that he ‘never spoke in sexual terms’ to them and that he had never asked either of them if they had boyfriends, or to come back to the shop after it was closed or for oral sex.
It was ruled that a retrial was justified by the new evidence, but the CPS decided to offer no evidence so Mr Ali’s conviction was quashed. However, by that time he had already served his full term of 18 months in prison.
After being released Mr Ali said, “My defence team did the things the police should have done. I don’t blame the girl, whether she wanted to hurt me or someone has set her up to do it, I don’t know. But I blame the police for taking it on without investigating properly. I tried my best to prove my innocence and there was evidence there. Whether to prove me innocent or guilty, they should have just looked at any of the cameras.”
A spokesman for the CPS said: “The complainant in this case does not wish to go through the trial process for a second time and so we decided not to pursue a retrial.” Well, she wouldn’t, would she?
Do you think there will be suffucient evidence to convict a serial offender with adequate evidence if her wrongdoing and targeting of innocent people with lies abd deceit? I am, of course, referring to Ms Alison Saubders.
Convict, no, but I suspect Saunders is going down. I detect the BBC and the political class making her take the rap. It won’t solve the endemic problem, much though we may applaud.
In order to restore confidence in the judicial process, A.Saunders really ought to face some measure of criminal sanction. At the very least, Malfeasance in Public Office. Allowing Saunders to withdraw from public life without her being obliged to face the Law would be absurd. It seems likely that thousands of innocent men have been falsely imprisoned. How many innocent men have committed suicide? We shall never know. Saunders cannot be allowed to get away with this.
Well, if she’s pushed, one suspects she’ll end up as an MP and spokesperson for the Labour party on something or other – domestic violence, perhaps.
David Starkey’s wholesome, non-PC & honest take on Rape and the Law – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hqi33mhXwgo – (3 minutes)
What continues to disturb me is the paucity of evidence sufficient to convict. How can the accusations of a single witness unsupported by other evidence be said to be proof beyond reasonable doubt? If the experience of the police is that this is sufficient then of course the police will often not investigate further. There is no upside if conviction is already likely and the prospect of undermining their case.
The question I am unclear about is whether this low standard of proof is ubiquitous or is it limited to accusations of a sexual nature?
Clearly sexual accusations are particularly easy to make because it generally will come down to one persons word against another’s.
I think it is unique to sexual offences – perhaps specifically to sexual offences against women and children – that the standard of proof has dropped below “beyond reasonable doubt” (though I’m sure that the judiciary would deny it, many barristers may be more forthright). In the case of a single accuser with no corroborating evidence, whether you get convicted seems to depend simply on who the jury chooses to believe (which is surely “balance of probability”). That’s the impression I’m getting – though my view may be skewed by the fact I’m only looking at cases of false allegation. If there are two or more accusers – again with no corroborating evidence – you are stuffed unless you can find hard exculpatory evidence – and it seems you have to do the finding yourself. Given victim compensation (even if the accused is found not guilty, by the way!) this becomes a fraudsters’ charter provided two or more people agree to co-accuse. They need not even conspire in advance, because the police trawling for evidence can bring this about after the initial accusation. I did not appreciate this myself until I looked at all these cases – but the least one must admit is that the system is wide open to abuse. So it’s hardly surprising if it is being abused.
The general focus on celebrity cases or middle class students obscures what generally happens. Most of the cases dealt with are unglamorous coming from the poorer sections of society. A sector of society in which involving the authorities in family squabbles or personal arguments is not regarded as shameful or embarrassing because people have often had involvement of a variety of agencies throughout their lives. So lying to settle scores or intimidate is not a rare occurrence. And although the amounts of compensation may seem modest to those better off, they form part of a spread of “compo” that provides additions to benefits and “gig economy” incomes. So worth a few falsehoods. If one adds this to the desperation of both Police and CPS to increase convictions the stage has been set for a constant supply of accusations (most in fact so ridiculous that they get dropped) with the pressure on to turn as many as possible into an arrest at least (one more stat for the police targets)and a prosecution bumping up the CPS tally.
Unlike the cases where the family, friends and solicitor do the Police job and find the evidence most cases are from communities I’m all too familiar with in which there is a sort of fatalistic acceptance that a process rolls along and the only thing is to do the time and move on.
I’m certain there are many victims of a Political Strategy (Violence against Women and Girls) which distorts the Police and CPS (the latter led by the all too Political Starmer then Saunders ) to achieve a political objective increase accusations, arrests and convictions. Because it has proven difficult to move the last of these the “rules” have been progressively changed in court and police integrity compromised to produce the politically acceptable result.
Yes, that sounds bang on to me.
Yes. The idea that we should do legal things in a proper way (even in sexual matters) is dawning on some people. And I think that may explain the MeToo thing now which is saying: “Well even if what happened was legal, we still think that doesn’t make it right. So what we want to do is have no legal process at all and leverage social media and things like that so that the person will be “called out”. Called out suggests that a discussion would take place and hopefully it would be geared towards maybe some amends being made (e.g. an apology) and a comittment to say “I see where you are coming from” and even to suggestions and understanding like “I see now that a better way to do x if I want y is to say and do these things instead of what I did”… etc…. But NO!!!! “Called out” means a kangaroo court where a message to your employer from an anonymous person about something unspecified (except to say it was felt to be “inappropriate”) that supposedly happened 20 years ago results in you being fired, ruined, wiped off the face of the earth.