Why the policy of “believe the complainant” was behind the failure of disclosure in the case of Liam Allan

tenchineuro · 2018-08-24T13:20:54+00:00

It’s easy sometimes to think that arguments about whether the police should believe a complainant [they are not a victim just because they make a complaint] without reservation or whether the police ought to receive a complaint respectfully whilst at the same time maintaining a mind open to the possibility that the complaint might not be all it is cracked up to be, are all rather abstract. If so the case of Liam Allan should do a lot to dispel such feelings. The current centre of attention is on the seemingly appalling failure of the process of disclosure of unused material. This took the form of a disc containing hundreds of text messages from the complainant to Mr Allan which plainly supported his claim that she had consented to sex and had not been raped. The role of the police in failing to make disclosure of evidence that should on a brief viewing have been obviously at odds with the complaint the police had received is also under scrutiny. But there are wider issues here that, if not addressed, will result in further cases like this in which an accused person may not be as lucky [in the end] as Liam Allan ultimately was.

Actually, when she names a man, I believe accuser is accurate, she has not just made a complaint, she has accused a specific man of raping her.

The attitude of the police officer who failed to consider that the material easily passed the statutory test for disclosure was engendered by the very idea now written into the official policy of the College of Policing that means that a complainant in a sex case must be believed.

That was the policy under Alison Saunders, and I doubt much has changed today.

Any police officer who considered that her or his duty was to investigate the case fearlessly and with a view to seeing if the allegation would stand up in court or was likely to fail should have considered that text messages between the complainant and the accused in this case should have been scrutinised.

One might think.

After all, its not as if Mr Allan’s lawyers didn’t do what they could to alert the prosecution to the fact that such material existed and if read and considered were completely devastating to the main thrust of the complaint namely that the complainant had been forced to have sex against her will. And the police didn’t deny that it did. They simply didn’t bother to read the material properly either because they were just lazy or more likely because they didn’t feel compelled to look for any material that might undermine the strength of the case the complainant had presented them with. In other words the officer didn’t act as impartial investigator but, informed by police policy, simply took the complaint at face value and made no proper attempt to check out the phone records.

And this is feminist jurisprudence, 'believe the victim' and don't forget that women don't deserve the same sentences as men for the same crime because millions of years of patriarchy.

TheImpossible1 · 2018-08-24T13:49:38+00:00

Only way to fix it is getting women out of power.

thrway_1000 · 2018-08-25T00:28:34+00:00

Archive -- https://archive.is/IfjKj

Title	Why the policy of “believe the complainant” was behind the failure of disclosure in the case of Liam Allan
Author	Imnotmrabut
Upvotes	8
Comments	4
Date	August 24, 2018 12:53 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/99x5rz/why_the_policy_of_believe_the_complainant_was/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/why-the-policy-of-believe-the-complainant-was.895537 https://theredarchive.com/post/895537

Comments