‘I accused a police officer of rape, but I was the one who ended up in the dock’

Woman in the dock Getty Images via BBC This report contains graphic and disturbing references to sexual abuse. When Ruth walked into a police station in the UK to report that she had been raped by her partner, she had no idea she would end up in the dock. She would later be accused by police of making a false rape report, indicted and put on trial. This began a years-long struggle to clear her name, before she was finally acquitted. Ruth, whose name has been changed to protect her identity, reported the alleged rape in early 2020, seven months after she and the man, a police officer, broke up. The day of the alleged assault was the last time the two saw each other. “I felt like if I didn’t report it, I wouldn’t be able to get on with my life,” Ruth told the BBC. ✅ Follow the g1 international news channel on WhatsApp See the videos that are trending on g1 Although the accused man was not charged with any crime, Ruth was charged with obstructing justice, an offense that can result in a maximum sentence of life in prison. In the United Kingdom, only an “extremely small number” of people are prosecuted each year for making false accusations of rape, according to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) — the body corresponding to the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The most recent official CPS data, from more than a decade ago, shows there were 5,651 prosecutions for rape in England and Wales over a 17-month period in 2011–2012, compared with 35 prosecutions for false rape allegations. Around the same time, CPS guidelines were updated, which led to a drop in the number of false rape allegations being prosecuted. A person falsely accused of rape before a trial will likely spend time in a police cell or even prison. If you are formally charged, your name usually becomes public. Even those quickly cleared can face stigmatization. Current CPS guidance states that it is important that police recognize the damaging impact that a false rape accusation can have and that such cases must be dealt with rigorously. “The standard required for these accusations is, rightly, high,” the agency said, adding that “reporting decisions must be approved by lawyers at the highest level of the organization.” In Ruth’s case, the judge stated that it appeared that “the entire prosecution had been commenced on false premises.” He raised serious doubts about the handling of the case — including about a key piece of evidence: a secret audio recording made by Ruth’s ex-partner. The case The man Ruth accused is suspended from West Midlands Police on full pay Getty Images via BBC Ruth’s relationship with the man she accused was brief but intense. It ended in the summer of 2019 after a painful sexual encounter that she claimed was rape. Ruth had reluctantly agreed to perform a certain sexual act, but claims that she imposed two conditions – one of which was that her partner would stop if she said it hurt. She says she explicitly withdrew consent during sexual intercourse. “It was really very painful,” he says. However, according to her, her partner didn’t stop. Afterwards, the two argued, and Ruth’s partner said the relationship was over. Ruth says she was in so much pain that she went to her general practitioner, who sent her to the hospital to collect samples and undergo an exam. She believed she had been raped. “I wasn’t going to report it, because he was a police officer,” she says. She tried to forget what happened, but when she faced difficulties with intimacy in a new relationship months later, she decided to make a rape report to Warwickshire Police. Ruth’s ex-partner – a West Midlands Police officer – was arrested and questioned, but denied raping her. As proof that the sex had been consensual, he presented an audio file that he had secretly recorded on his cell phone during the relationship, stating that this demonstrated that Ruth was lying. Evidence later showed that Warwickshire Police investigators agreed with him, saying she could be heard “laughing and consenting”. Six weeks later, Warwickshire Police said no further action would be taken against Ruth’s former partner. She, however, then received a call from the corporation asking her to attend a voluntary interview. “I thought they were really supporting me, and then everything changed very quickly,” he said. “They said I was a rejected woman, that he didn’t want me anymore and that’s why I had made up a rape accusation.” It was during this police interview that Ruth discovered the secret audio recording made by her ex-partner. In November 2020, nine months after filing the complaint, Ruth was charged with obstruction of justice. Inconsistencies Obstructing justice means deliberately interfering with the functioning of the justice system. The crime covers conduct such as providing a false alibi to protect a friend or relative, destroying or hiding evidence, threatening witnesses or making a false accusation. When prosecuting suspected false rape allegations, police forces in England and Wales must refer any charging decision to the highest level, notifying the director of public prosecutions. According to CPS guidelines, authorities need to have proof that the person made a false accusation. In Ruth’s case, in addition to the audio recording, investigators said there were significant inconsistencies between the allegations Ruth had made and messages she sent to her partner giving consent to have sexual relations. When Ruth’s trial finally began in April 2023, prosecution lawyers told the court that the recording and messages, as well as her behavior before and after the encounter, were evidence that she was lying. They referred to a transcript of the recording, but chose not to play the audio for the jury. However, Ruth’s lawyer, Sophie Murray, played the audio. ‘The mood in the room changed’ As the recording played, Ruth could be heard saying she was in pain and telling her partner “no” and “take it off”. The sounds of laughter and pleasure were not coming from Ruth. The defense team analyzed the audio file and discovered that these sounds had actually been made by actors in a pornographic film that was playing in the background. “Suddenly, the atmosphere in the room changed completely,” Ruth recalls. It was the first time she had heard a recording of the alleged rape — which she describes as “worse than I remembered.” Murray remembers hearing in court audio of Ruth, who sat behind her in the dock, clearly in pain. It was “probably one of the most difficult moments of my professional career”, he says. Ruth’s defense was based on the idea that her “conditional consent” had been violated. The Sexual Offenses Act 2003 states that a person can impose conditions on consenting to sexual intercourse — for example, the use of a condom. If these conditions are not met, the sexual act is considered non-consensual. In his victim impact statement, Ruth’s ex-partner described being accused of rape as a “lived nightmare” and stated that Ruth had categorically agreed to the sexual act. However, under interrogation by Murray, he admitted that Ruth had asked him to stop the sexual act if it hurt — and that he didn’t. He is currently suspended from West Midlands Police on full pay. He will face a disciplinary hearing later this year to determine whether audio recording the sexual act without her knowledge violated the police code of ethics. The BBC tried to contact him but he did not respond. Not Guilty The jury took just over an hour to find Ruth not guilty of obstruction of justice. Because this was not a rape trial, the verdict did not mean that the jury had concluded that she had been raped — only that she believed she had been raped when she made the complaint. “I didn’t cry, I didn’t scream,” she says of being found innocent. “To be honest, I really don’t know what I felt.” The judge questioned how the CPS and Warwickshire Police made their decisions. He also called for the original rape investigation to be reopened. The CPS told the BBC that it takes all allegations of rape extremely seriously and that in exceptional cases, such as Ruth’s case, the evidence was reviewed by a number of specialist prosecutors. However, he added that he respects the jury’s decision. In a statement, Warwickshire Police said the original decision to charge Ruth with obstruction of justice was made in consultation with the CPS. After the trial, he added, “a full review of this case and the original rape investigation was carried out by independent police officers who had no prior involvement in either case.” An opinion was also sought from a different area of ​​the CPS to ensure an independent perspective, according to the corporation – but it was “again established that there was still insufficient evidence to proceed with a rape allegation, and the decision was to close the case.” The police force also said that the victim was kept informed throughout the review process and highlighted that it takes “all reports of rape extremely seriously and does everything it can to support victims of rape”, as well as having “invested more resources into investigating rape allegations”. The fact that the suspect in the rape investigation was a serving police officer had no impact on the investigation and entailed additional levels of scrutiny, the statement added. The force that employs Ruth’s former partner, West Midlands Police, said an investigation into conduct issues was carried out following Ruth’s trial, as internal investigations do not progress during criminal proceedings. According to the police, although the investigation into the agent took place as quickly as possible, it needed to be conducted “within a strict legal framework, which means that serious or complex cases can take time.” Ruth states that she feels disappointed with the decision not to sue her ex-partner, but that she does not regret reporting the alleged rape. “I can honestly say that everything I did was right for me and for other people,” she says. “I hope no one goes through the same situation as me.” VIDEOS: most watched on g1

Source link