The Futility of Innocence
- Colin Ward
- Jul 10, 2016
- 5 min read
Whether you are a celebrity in the public eye; just an everyday person trying to do your job; an adult trying to support your family; or in PCJ cases, children and young people trying to find their way in the world; a false allegation of serious and sexual offences has a profound effect on your life.
For celebrities it can tarnish a carefully crafted public persona and potentially ruin a career. Sir Cliff Richard has mostly maintained his iconic status and never truly lost the support of his fans. Nevertheless, he acknowledges that his squeaky-clean reputation has not gone without some bruising. In an interview with the Daily Mail he said: ‘…it disappointed me that the record company said, “Let’s wait until this is all over.”’ The sheer injustice of having to place your life on hold when you have done no wrong is a cruel, back-breaking limbo to find yourself in.
Time and time again, we state most clearly that we fully agree that all investigations that could affect the safety of the public, and especially children, should be undertaken. But when you are accused by a malicious, selfish, often narcissistic liar it is simply not fair – especially since it is extremely rare that they will ever face any consequences for their actions. Why should their be no consequences? Should people be allowed to actively destroy someone else with the most deplorable of allegations without facing consequences? We can blame the BBC and the Police for their procedural failings – and indeed we should – but to blame them and NOT have consequences for the false accuser seems…unfair on the moral fibre of society.
Is it any worse for celebrities? After all, even if you aren’t a celebrity before your allegation you might well become one for all the wrong reasons, and especially if you live in a small town or community. If you are the kind of person that never misses a day of work and then suddenly vanishes without mention, rumours start easily and spread quickly. And even if the fan the shit has hit does finally get switched off, it still sticks and the stench lingers. Even if your case doesn’t go to trial, people still wonder…
When it comes to children being accused there is of course far more public protection from the media, but that doesn’t stop the potential for rumours in the local community. What if the accused and claimant attend the same school? Does the school suspend an innocent child on the back of an allegation, just like they would have to with a member of staff?*
I must admit I am not completely surprised by many comments I have read taking about Sir Cliff’s legal action merely threatening to take money from the Licence payers or the Tax Payers. And yet no-one seems to be bothered by such wastes of money committed by the false accuser. The £800,000 wasted on the Sir Cliff investigation; the extra £50-60k for a trial; £40k+ a year for a wrongful imprisonment. But no-one seems to bemoan that or blame the liar who made the allegation. Combine that with the costs of all the appeals, overturned convictions, and so on. Just imagine what we could do with all of that money.
It is clear that Sir Cliff is not in a position where the financial effects of the case are anything for him to worry about. He could easily afford the £1m he spent on a defence team – unlike any of us everyday people who rely all too much on the pathetic pittance that is legal aid. It’s a two-tiered system: if you can afford a good, privately paid defence team you stand more chance getting access to justice than you do if you merely get legal aid.
“Why is it that we find guilt, hatred, and suspicion so easy but we must be made to fight so hard for innocence?”
No-one deserves to be an innocent victim of a false allegation, or the abuse of Police-Media collusion and corruption and more than true victims of abuse should be blamed for what happened to them. A drunk, scantily clad woman is not “asking for it” or to blame for being raped. But should an innocent person have to put up with the destruction of their life as collateral damage?
Why is it that we find guilt, hatred, and suspicion so easy but we must be made to fight so hard for innocence? In sexual crimes you’re not allowed to represent yourself in court because that would involve you cross-examining the victim. Think carefully about what that says. It makes the assumption that the claimant has told an irrefutable truth, and that you are presumed to be too monstrous for the cross-examination of the so-called victim. I can understand the reasoning completely in order to protect a terrified victim or witness. But is it not our legal right to face our accuser? And yet we have built it into our system of law that as soon as you are accused of a sexual offence – such as rape or sexual abuse – that you are not innocent; or at least not innocent enough to retain your rights. The subtext is there…and the air begins to linger the stench to the jury from the moment the case begins…
You are no longer “innocent until proven guilty”. You must prove your innocence. And yet, even if you are acquitted you will only be told that “you have been found not guilty”. Your innocence has gone, forever. After all, since you have been charged, there must have been enough evidence to have charged you with… surely?
No. Not at all true.
And that might be the huge error in Sir Cliff’s case for revenge. Too many people are charged on the back of no evidence whatsoever other than the word of the accuser: something that no other area of crime permits you to do. The accusers get all the support to bring that high jump bar as low as possible, and get all the help they need to get over it. But the accused must face the lowered limbo bar floating inches above hot coals: even if they manage to survive, they will still get burnt.
I truly hope that the action Sir Cliff takes – and his partnership with Paul Gambaccini and Nigel Evans - can stir up support for all of us who fight against the injustice of false allegations and wrongful convictions; those of us who do not have the funds to instruct expensive private specialist legal teams; those of us without a name before our allegations, but with an unwelcome label after.
The bigger fight has always been the fight against the futility of innocence. No matter how rich or famous you are, your record will forever say “No Further Action” – not “innocent.”
*The suspension of staff from workplace is not an automatic legal requirement. Advice would be sought from relevant safeguarding or HR meetings. However, in the vast majority of cases where the employee works with vulnerable people a suspension is the most common for the duration of the investigation, and especially when the claimant and accused need to remain separate due to bail conditions.
Comentarios