Sexual harm
| Date | 01 March 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550520905144b |
| Published date | 01 March 2020 |
| Subject Matter | In court |
Probation Journal 67(1)
the terms of any preventive order should not be ‘too vague and difficult to enforce’.
The judge had been satisfied that the wording adopted was sufficiently precise and
workable. However, the Appeal Court was unpersuaded that the wording met that
test, asking: ‘What is meant by “relationship”? When is one “formed” such as to
trigger an obligation . . . to inform the local police of the name of the female in
question? How is a clause expressed thus to be policed?’. The Court concluded that
‘the clause is hopelessly vague’ and that M.’s objections were well-founded. That
said, the fact that a clause in a CBO ‘does not address every [dimension of risk] that
can envisaged does not mean it lacks sufficient utility so as to warrant being made’.
In place of the ‘hopeless’ clause, the Court minted its own replacement drafting
to address the risk at stake, requiring M. ‘to inform the local police of the name and
address of any female (excluding family members) with whom he resides for a
period of 14 days or more (consecutive or otherwise)’, believing this formulation
to have sufficient clarity and ‘policeability’. As regards duration, the Court noted
that M. had displayed very concerning behaviour towards women for many years
and it was reasonable for the judge to consider that the risk he represents would
persist for a long time in the future. The judge had thus been correct in determining
that the CBO should remain in place for 15 years. Finally, though not a require-
ment of the order, the Court considered that M. should ‘be encouraged in the event
of becoming interested in any female in the future to keep a diary of precisely
when and where he has been staying with her, so that the question of policing can
be established more easily’.
R v MAGUIRE, [2019] 2 Cr App R(S) 55.
Sexual harm
Survivor’s false rape allegations
At age 13 (2005), B. had been the victim of rape. From 2008, she made of
sequence of allegations claiming, often in graphic detail, that she had been sub-
jected to serious physical and sexual violence, usually after she had been drinking
and/or had an argument with her partner. She had developed a pattern of ‘man-
oeuvring men into a situation where she could have sex with them’. On one such
occasion (2010), she had had intercourse with a man she had just met, after
agreeing to join him in his car, later claiming that she had been abducted by a
stranger from the street and raped. She twice gave evidence for the prosecution at
that man’s trial, claiming that she was a lesbian and that her life had been ruined by
him; he was convicted after retrial and given seven years imprisonment. She was
awarded GBP£11,000 criminal injuries compensation but told a partner that she
had made a false claim for the money she could thus gain. In 2015, the man’s
successful appeal against conviction was unopposed by the Crown. In the mean-
time, she had made further claims against men, one of whom had left the jurisdiction
to avoid trial, though CCTV footage provided clear evidence that her account had
been without foundation.
In court
85
After further such complaints proved baseless, B. was convicted in 2017 of three...
To continue reading
Request your trial