Triggering (Abuse): Woman’s eight false rape claims

[Blackwing]

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/new...e_rape_claims/



A WOMAN who reported eight false rapes to the police has walked free from court.
Rod Hunt, prosecuting, said Jayne Stuart, 37, withdrew the latest claim after she realised the effect on the men she accused after having consensual sex with them.
Judge Peter Bowers said it was unfortunate that there was no anonymity for the men, four of whom were acquitted after trials in the past two years.
Mr Hunt told Teesside Crown Court yesterday that Stuart, who is single, was not wicked, but had mental health difficulties that led to her making the accusations.
One man from Darlington was cleared of rape, but convicted of actual bodily harm assault with a sex toy.
The family of her latest victim was in court when she pleaded guilty to attempting to pervert the course of public justice between April 24 and May 16 with a false allegation of rape to police.
Stuart, of Gormier Close, Thirsk, North Yorkshire, was given a 12-month jail sentence, suspended for 18 months, with supervision.
Mr Hunt said: “Each of the men involved have suffered a terrible stigma.
“It seems to be a fallback position on her behaviour.
She makes a complaint and it has to be investigated, but she has withdrawn her most recent complaint.
“The Crown concede in her case that she is a person labouring under mental health difficulties, and that this is not the usual case where someone is out-and-out wicked.
“It may be, now that she is able to see the harm she is doing to others, that she may be able to stand on her own two feet.”
Bryan Russell, in mitigation, said Stuart feared jail.
He said she had worked in charity shops in the past, and was willing to do so again as a community punishment.
Judge Bowers told her: “You deserve a prison sentence and usually I would send somebody to prison for this.
“The danger is that if you had a genuine, a real complaint in the future, the police might not be very inclined to take you seriously.
“You will have to be very careful with whom you take up with in the future.”

[The ANTI-Troll]

im gonna get shit for this but....

since she likes to falsly accuse men of rape maybe the men should do what she accused them of to her... she ruined those mens lives even if they werent convicted i think she should suffer for the damage she caused...

[emma01]

Originally Posted by The ANTI-Troll

im gonna get shit for this but....

since she likes to falsly accuse men of rape maybe the men should do what she accused them of to her... she ruined those mens lives even if they werent convicted i think she should suffer for the damage she caused...

LOL I am not going to give you shit for that as really I agree but as I highly doubt that will ever happen, that woman should just pay all four men a huge amount of compensation, even if she needs to sell all her possessions to get the money to them. ugh she is a stupid loser!

[Blackwing]

I wonder when she yells rape... anyone will actually believe her !!if she is truly raped by force.

[emma01]

Originally Posted by Vipers

I wonder when she yells rape... anyone will actually believe her !!if she is truly raped by force.

HAHA LOL! Man she's an easy target now as no one will believe her! I'd watch herself if I was her!

[Brandon]

I could write a book response, but I'm not going to do that just yet...all I'm going to say is that...this woman deserves a nice prison sentence.

[off to a new life]

It's awful what this woman has done, but if she truly understands now that what she was doing was wrong then I see no reason to put her in jail.

[Pelios]

She didn't get any jail time?
She should be out in jail at least 8 years one for every false claim...

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

She was declared not mentally fit so when that happens, the person doesn't go to jail. They do often get incarcerated in forensic psychiatric hospitals at varying levels of security though, so it's possible she may have gotten that as it wouldn't count as jail time. She did say though she's willing to do community punishment so she may be getting that. Now that she is able to understand the harm she's doing, she should at least pay a compensation to the men.

Sad thing is, just like the story of the boy who cried wolf, eventually when the wolf does come, the villagers don't. That seems likely to happen to her: she calls rape and each time it's fake, so when it does happen, she may not be believed.

[Jesus Christ.]

That's just stupid, I blame the parents D=

[Doodle.]

Originally Posted by The ANTI-Troll

im gonna get shit for this but....

since she likes to falsly accuse men of rape maybe the men should do what she accused them of to her... she ruined those mens lives even if they werent convicted i think she should suffer for the damage she caused...

Honestly, I completely agree :| Actually, I think she should get more as she has done this to EIGHT times :| That's really disgusting.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Couldn't the men or police sue her for false accusations and slander? Perhaps they could let it go once or twice but 8 times? Come on, she's on the way to pulling off 3 hat tricks then a baker's dozen. If she was suffering from such mental health problems that she began giving these accusations, why not put her into a mental hospital to get her more stabilized?

[The ANTI-Troll]

Originally Posted by Regina Phalange

Honestly, I completely agree :| Actually, I think she should get more as she has done this to EIGHT times :| That's really disgusting.

thanks

i just feel really sorry for those men there lives are ruined they might be proved innocent and she might be proven she lied but what she said they did will haunt those men for a long time... i could understand letting her off for mental problems if she did it once or twice but 8 times ? no way if she really has mentall problems stick her in a mental hospital for as long as each of the men would have gotten if they did rape her...

whats she gonna do if some sicko uses this to there advantages and does rape her and she accuses themm ? theyll likelly get off since she did it before and when it really did happen no one will believe her.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by WOW!USaidSomethingSmart!

Couldn't the men or police sue her for false accusations and slander? Perhaps they could let it go once or twice but 8 times? Come on, she's on the way to pulling off 3 hat tricks then a baker's dozen. If she was suffering from such mental health problems that she began giving these accusations, why not put her into a mental hospital to get her more stabilized?

Bit of a grey area I'm afraid - I can't remember the specific defences for defamation off the top of my head but mental health at the time of the accusations would probably be a factor in how likely it is a claim could be brought. If it's resulted in a reduction in the sentence already then there is obviously strong evidence these were serious problems so that could be a stumbling block to establishing liability. It's also difficult to prove whether she knew the statements to be false when she was making them in light of the mentioned "mental health difficulties", so it might not quite meet the threshold for that part of the test for defamation. It would certainly pass the publication test though so it all depends on how big a factor the aforementioned are, and I wouldn't like to comment on that without a chance to look at the case law.

I feel it is worth pointing out she has still been given a custodial sentence of 12 months - it is however conditional on how she conducts herself over the next 18 months. Should she commit further offences in that time or breach the terms of her supervision order then she will most certainly go to prison.

[Doodle.]

Even if it was once I think it's still messed up :| That man's life would have turned upside down because of her :/ This also goes to show why a lot of people don't believe people who have actually been abused :/

[losing touch.]

Originally Posted by The ANTI-Troll

im gonna get shit for this but....

since she likes to falsly accuse men of rape maybe the men should do what she accused them of to her... she ruined those mens lives even if they werent convicted i think she should suffer for the damage she caused...

wait.. are you saying she should be raped? or that she should do the time that would be given to someone who raped 8 people?..

[The ANTI-Troll]

Originally Posted by losing touch.

wait.. are you saying she should be raped? or that she should do the time that would be given to someone who raped 8 people?..

im saying both....she ruined those mens lives

[losing touch.]

Originally Posted by The ANTI-Troll

im saying both....she ruined those mens lives

i can't even imagine what those men and their families are going through, and i would support the longest possible prison sentence for her. BUT suggesting she should be raped is disgusting and totally wrong. what she did is horrible and i'm not trying to excuse her actions at all.. but wow, just wow. that's really messed up if you actually think that.

[The ANTI-Troll]

Originally Posted by losing touch.

i can't even imagine what those men and their families are going through, and i would support the longest possible prison sentence for her. BUT suggesting she should be raped is disgusting and totally wrong. what she did is horrible and i'm not trying to excuse her actions at all.. but wow, just wow. that's really messed up if you actually think that.

whys it wrong she cried rape 8 timess... if she falsly accuses 8 people for rape maybe she secretly saying she wants to... despite what people think men getting falsly acussed of rape is all to common. maybe if there was a more severe off color punishment for it if found guilty of lying there would be less liers and more people who have actually been raped.

this woman basically made fun of people who have actually been raped . that is not cool nor funny no matter what mental problems she has...

[losing touch.]

Originally Posted by The ANTI-Troll

whys it wrong she cried rape 8 timess... if she falsly accuses 8 people for rape maybe she secretly saying she wants to... despite what people think men getting falsly acussed of rape is all to common. maybe if there was a more severe off color punishment for it if found guilty of lying there would be less liers and more people who have actually been raped.

this woman basically made fun of people who have actually been raped . that is not cool nor funny no matter what mental problems she has...

to be honest, i can't really take your argument seriously. yes, she was wrong, but saying 'oh yeah she should be raped.' wtf? that's completely messed up. two wrongs don't make a right. i hope she gets a harsh sentence, she deserves it but suggesting something as ridiculous as her being raped as punishment is unbelievable.

[lostandalone]

She should have got prison time. Or atleast commited to a hospital. Those mens lives are ruined. I am sure they will be dealing with the mental and emotional scars for a long time, as well difficulty in there home and work life.

I don't think anyone is going to believe her if it really does happen. or atleast not very easily.

I also wonder about the next time any woman reports a rape in that town.

[Brandon]

I'm all for a large prison sentence but I don't think having her raped would be totally necessary. At times I do believe in Hammurabi's Code of Law where an "eye for an eye" would be appropriate, but for all we know...she could WANT to be raped. What kind of punishment is it to have a woman raped when she wants to be raped? Isn't that consensual sex? Basically she ruins the lives of innocent men, and is punished by having consensual sex. What the hell kind of punishment is that? No, stick her in prison, and let her inmates take care of all that.

[Blackwing]

Originally Posted by Eryykah

She should have got prison time. Or atleast commited to a hospital. Those mens lives are ruined. I am sure they will be dealing with the mental and emotional scars for a long time, as well difficulty in there home and work life.

I don't think anyone is going to believe her if it really does happen. or atleast not very easily.

I also wonder about the next time any woman reports a rape in that town.

Her actions shouldn't be used for every case with different women... maybe in the future if she happens to be Raped [real] nobody will take her serious and the person will be set free.

[Just Peachy.]

Originally Posted by México

She didn't get any jail time?
She should be out in jail at least 8 years one for every false claim...

I think the sentence needs to be more harsh then that, although I totally agree.
Rape should have a life long sentence.
She should have at least a ten year sentence.


Karma is coming to her.

[her_beautiful_mistake]

Originally Posted by losing touch.

i can't even imagine what those men and their families are going through, and i would support the longest possible prison sentence for her. BUT suggesting she should be raped is disgusting and totally wrong. what she did is horrible and i'm not trying to excuse her actions at all.. but wow, just wow. that's really messed up if you actually think that.

I agree. I actually feel slightly sick that several people here think it would be good for someone to be raped. Ugh.

[Fictional]

I wonder what the sentence for perverting the courts of justice is... she should get that times eight

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Fictional

I wonder what the sentence for perverting the courts of justice is... she should get that times eight

Here are the official Crown Prosecution Service guidelines on the offence of perverting the course of justice:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/s...se_of_justice/

It goes on to set out some case law in which false accusations of rape have been made, and the sentences for such false accusations have ranged from four months to two years. There's also an interesting comment near the top of the page which may explain why the sentence seems to have no relation to the allegations she made:

Originally Posted by CPS

Whilst sentencing, care must be taken to avoid giving the impression that the sentence is on the basis of conviction of the substantive offence rather than of the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

[Heretic]

I see substantial grounds for lawsuits on the grounds of slander and libel. Even if only one of the victims files suit, I think a hefty sum should be divided between all eight of them. I don't care if this woman has to sell her home, car, and all of her possessions. In fact, I prefer that she have to do it.

[Casey.]

Yes, it's wrong that she made those claims. However, she had consensual sex with these men, and she has mental issues, so maybe, in her mind afterwards, it was like, non-consensual. She may have been confused or something, either way, she's declared mentally unfit, so no court is going to sent her to jail. Community service, mayhaps, court ordered mental help probably, but jail? It's not going to happen. If you are mentally unfit, you aren't held responsible for the stupidity that is yourself, it sucks but that's the law in most civilized countries. If you read the article, she wasn't calling rape to be malicious or wicked, she was mentally unstable, and maybe she thought it was rape.

I do have to say, for a bunch of open minded, good teenagers, automatically saying that she should be raped because she claimed rape is not only uncool, it's wrong. Rape should never be a punishment for anything.Ever. If the victums file a civil law suit, they might be able to get something out of it, if her lawyer doesn't automatically play the mentally unstable card, which would make her not liable. This isn't the whole story guys, it's just the bit the press wants you to know to make you angry and heated.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by dr2005

I feel it is worth pointing out she has still been given a custodial sentence of 12 months - it is however conditional on how she conducts herself over the next 18 months. Should she commit further offences in that time or breach the terms of her supervision order then she will most certainly go to prison.

Why would she go to prison? It was documented she had mental health problems so if she violates her supervision order, shouldn't her mental health be checked first and not off to prison? Also, if the sentence is 12 months, why do those extra 6 months matter or is that a typo? It seems rather odd that she was suffering mentally this badly yet she's not being considered for a mental health secure hospital. I suppose her improvement could be due to unreported consultations with psychiatrists but in the event there was no consultation, there's a high chance of repeat behaviour.

Originally Posted by Casey.

This isn't the whole story guys, it's just the bit the press wants you to know to make you angry and heated.

When is it ever the whole story reported in newspapers or online news?

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by WOW!USaidSomethingSmart!

Why would she go to prison? It was documented she had mental health problems so if she violates her supervision order, shouldn't her mental health be checked first and not off to prison? Also, if the sentence is 12 months, why do those extra 6 months matter or is that a typo? It seems rather odd that she was suffering mentally this badly yet she's not being considered for a mental health secure hospital. I suppose her improvement could be due to unreported consultations with psychiatrists but in the event there was no consultation, there's a high chance of repeat behaviour.

A few things to note here.

1) Whatever the mental health difficulties are - for which one would have to read the pre-sentence reports - they have not been held sufficient for acquittal and so by the same vein would likely not be sufficient to prevent custody were the probation order breached. Were they sufficient, it is likely a treatment order would have been made instead.

2) The probation order including supervision (not supervision order - an error on my part for which I apologise) will likely include the mental health services in light of the submissions made. However, should it be breached then unless there is evidence of deterioration of her mental state making hospital more appropriate it is more likely the suspended sentence will be activated. The sentence as it stands suggests the difficulties are not sufficient to prevent custody as otherwise the suspended sentence would not have been made at all.

3) The suspension period is not connected to the length of the sentence - it is set by the judge and reflects what they deem a sufficient probationary period in light of the offence committed. It is not an extra 6 months on the sentence; instead it means that the defendant is liable to be sent to prison if they breach their order within those 18 months. After 18 months and pending the successful completion of the order, the conviction is treated as spent.

Hope that clears things up a bit.

[forfrosne]

Personally, i don't care if she has mental health problems. I'd still like to see her spend a minimum of (works out sums in head... 8x8) 64 years in prison. Each of those men's entire lives and reputations are now ruined on her whim. She should be in prison for 64 years, the amount of time each of these men would have served.

This is a perfect example of why the courts need a drastic overhaul. I would have thought that it's just COMMON SENSE to give anonymity to a person accused of rape. Being aware of the factors (automatic reputation-ruiner etc.) they should realise that publishing the name is wrong.

Unfortunately, as the courts are, I don't think she'll be seeing any punishment, or very little, certainly not jail. Come to think of it, she wouldn't get jail even if she wasn't mentally disabled.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by dr2005

The suspension period is not connected to the length of the sentence - it is set by the judge and reflects what they deem a sufficient probationary period in light of the offence committed. It is not an extra 6 months on the sentence; instead it means that the defendant is liable to be sent to prison if they breach their order within those 18 months. After 18 months and pending the successful completion of the order, the conviction is treated as spent.

I get it now, I thought the suspension period was the same as the sentence so I was confused on what was going on there. I know you can run circles around me in law, so I feel you're the best person on this site to ask: as you said, whatever her mental health illness was, it wasn't severe enough to get her hospital treatment. Given that, could the men falsely accused sue her in a civil court (assuming they cant in the criminal court)? The amount of evidence is lower in civil courts, so would her mental illness have a greater weight in her defense or would it be treated the same as in the current case? I have the feeling it would be treated the same but since the men would need to meet a lower benchmark for evidence, would the mental illness be above or below that? Obviously this requires knowing what her condition is and I'm assuming you don't know it (I don't either) but in general, what would you expect?

By the way, I noticed you're in the UK, so is there an abbreviation of NCRMD or NCR for "not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder" or "not criminally responsible", or is it something else?

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by WOW!USaidSomethingSmart!

I get it now, I thought the suspension period was the same as the sentence so I was confused on what was going on there. I know you can run circles around me in law, so I feel you're the best person on this site to ask: as you said, whatever her mental health illness was, it wasn't severe enough to get her hospital treatment. Given that, could the men falsely accused sue her in a civil court (assuming they cant in the criminal court)? The amount of evidence is lower in civil courts, so would her mental illness have a greater weight in her defense or would it be treated the same as in the current case? I have the feeling it would be treated the same but since the men would need to meet a lower benchmark for evidence, would the mental illness be above or below that? Obviously this requires knowing what her condition is and I'm assuming you don't know it (I don't either) but in general, what would you expect?

No problem - happy to help. It helps justify the tuition fees for one thing!
To answer your question above, from what I have been able to find my understanding would be that while it would be raised as a mitigating factor in limiting any damages awardable, it would be unlikely to negate her liability until it could be shown that the difficulties mentioned limited her capacity. In other words, if they meant that on the balance of probabilities she was unaware that a wrong had been committed (in this case defamation by way of slander) then it would be an absolute defence against liability. That would however depend upon the exact details of what the difficulties were, so it's difficult to say whether it would be above or below the 51% required. It would still have the same weight as in the criminal courts - the Civil Procedure Rules do not differ on that if I recall correctly - but it all comes down to what the medical evidence suggests. None of this would prevent the men from bringing a claim against her, but they would impact upon the likely success of such claims.

Originally Posted by WOW!USaidSomethingSmart!

By the way, I noticed you're in the UK, so is there an abbreviation of NCRMD or NCR for "not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder" or "not criminally responsible", or is it something else?

We still have the rather archaic "not guilty by reason of insanity" or insanity defence, which is basically the same thing - it stems from the M'Naghten Rules much like most common law approaches do. We also have a subdivision for murder called "not guilty by reason of diminished responsibility" which reduces it to manslaughter and another mitigating factor called "state of temporary mental impairment" which can depending on the circumstances result in either reduction of sentence or acquittal. It's very convoluted and not without a lot of criticism, particularly as none of them have a particularly strong medical basis. The whole area has been recommended for reform on a number of occasions but has never made it through Parliament unfortunately.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by dr2005

No problem - happy to help. It helps justify the tuition fees for one thing!

LOL

Originally Posted by dr2005

We still have the rather archaic "not guilty by reason of insanity" or insanity defence, which is basically the same thing - it stems from the M'Naghten Rules much like most common law approaches do. We also have a subdivision for murder called "not guilty by reason of diminished responsibility" which reduces it to manslaughter and another mitigating factor called "state of temporary mental impairment" which can depending on the circumstances result in either reduction of sentence or acquittal. It's very convoluted and not without a lot of criticism, particularly as none of them have a particularly strong medical basis. The whole area has been recommended for reform on a number of occasions but has never made it through Parliament unfortunately.

Wow. I'm not studying law but from the courses I've taken such as forensic psychology with FBI profilers and such, in Canada there's only NCRMD or NCR. I remember learning about the M'Naughten Rules, kind of ironic how a massive chaotic mistake brings about chaos when trying to from the "insanity plea" even to this day. I believe it can also reduce the sentence down to something less but I'm not sure if that's some other similar legal term. The last one we have also but it's pretty much like the NCRMD, which is a "heat of the moment", took so many drugs at the time you couldn't tell up from down or whether you were living on the Sun or Pluto. Most of them don't have strong medical evidence but I'll have to check the actual legal code, in Canada at one point psychologists and/or psychiatrists couldn't discuss behaviour when called as an expert witness because they weren't qualified, yet "qualified individuals" were allowed (never said who those people are though). Although that silly thing got removed, it goes to show that on different continents for the same issue, the law is so over-complicated it makes the brain look simple (coming from someone who studies in the field of neuro lol).

[Choclacation]

Casey I couldn't agree more with what you said...
I'm not saying that she shouldn't get punished, it's people like her that messes up the system for people that actually has been abused...

But saying that she deserves going through sexual abuse as a punishment is sick. She has mental health issues and I thought as Casey also wrote that she probably did thought it was rape.
You're even forgetting that one of the men did get convicted for bodily harm assualt so there's probably more of the story to tell than what we've heard about it.

[Jesus Christ.]

Originally Posted by Choclacation

there's probably more of the story to tell than what we've heard about it.

There's probable more to every story that we see on the news, people only generally pick that point out when a large proportion of people disagree with their opinions.

[ARTPOP]

Why , what a bitch! How dare she do that , she's wrecked lives!

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Smiley:)

Why , what a bitch! How dare she do that , she's wrecked lives!

I suppose you missed the part where it said she was suffering from mental illnesses during that time which may have impeded her ability to rationalize what she was doing. The article clearly said she was not doing this to intentionally harm or in spitefulness. Next time read the article instead of just the title and posting the first thing that comes to mind without thinking much.