Purported False Allegations of Rape,Child Abuse and Non-Sexual Violence

Introduction

In 2010, a report issued by the Ministry of Justice found that there was ‘insufficient reliable empirical findings on which to base an informed decision on the value of providing anonymity to rape defendants’. ¹ The report noted that there were significant gaps in the available evidence on the nature, prevalence, police recording of false rape allegations and several other issues. ² Since that time, research has been conducted on the rate of false allegations compared to other serious offences, ³ the number of alleged false allegations of rape and domestic violence prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), ⁴ the impact of false allegations on those accused, ⁵ the motivations of false accusers ⁶ and police perceptions of false allegations. ⁷ The subject of false allegations continues to be a matter raised by those who favour a change in the law to grant anonymity to rape defendants ⁸ and is a feature of instances where rape complainants are harassed and threatened. ⁹ The issue is also the subject of an ongoing campaign objecting to the prosecution of those accused of making false accusation, ¹⁰ amid suggestions that women are ‘aggressively’ prosecuted by the CPS. ¹¹

The purpose of this article is to further deepen our understanding of the topic by examining a unique data set that explores the nature and characteristics of 701 cases involving individuals who purport to have been falsely accused of rape, child sexual abuse, child abuse/neglect and other forms of wrongdoing. ¹² The article aims to provide an insight into the nature and characteristics of these purported false accusations, which were reported to an organisation that exists to provide support and advice to the falsely accused. The article proceeds by first, critically examining a range of contextual issues, including the labelling of false allegations, trends in the current scholarly literature and the suggestion that discussing false allegations is dangerous and an issue best ignored. Second, the article discusses the methodological challenges posed by the research featured in this article and goes on to detail the findings derived from the quantitative data. Finally, the implications of the findings for policy development are discussed, along with suggestions for future research.

The Importance of Terminology

Whatever term is used to refer to false allegations of criminal and other misconduct, the phenomenon covers a great deal of ground. The notion of ‘false’ in the sense of a deliberate fabrication does not accurately describe all false allegations and the use of the word ‘allegation’ may also be inappropriate in certain instances. In police, social service or medical-forensic investigations, there may be no allegation at all. Instead, there may be cases where there is suspicion but no direct accusation. However, those caught up in the investigative process may feel that they are being accused. ¹³ Amid the references to ‘false allegations’ in the research and practitioner literature, there exist a bewildering array of other words and terms. ¹⁴ Some studies combine the notion of falsity with the motives underpinning an allegation when referring to malicious allegations. ¹⁵ Other studies acknowledge the uncorroborated or uncertain nature of an allegation which may or may not be true by referring to ‘unsubstantiated’, ¹⁶ ‘unproven’, ¹⁷ ‘unconfirmed’ ¹⁸ allegations or those involving ‘no evidence of assault’. ¹⁹ There are also distinctions in terminology based on who makes the allegation. Some labels refer to a pathway to accusation, for example, ‘mistaken’ allegations arising partly or wholly from professional error. ²⁰ In other instances, the label includes the means by which the allegation is made. For example, reference is sometimes made to the dissemination of ‘social allegations’ or rumours concerning a particular person in a community. ²¹ Such categories are not discreet because false allegations have differing characteristics and may have more than one underpinning cause or motive. ²²

Further, whatever the label, uncertainties abound. Reference to ‘unsubstantiated’, ‘unproven’ or ‘unconfirmed’ accusations may mean that the allegation is entirely untrue, partially true or wholly true, although that is not to suggest that these options are equally likely. In a criminal justice context, rape suspects may not be charged due to the absence of corroborating evidence, but this does not mean that they are factually innocent. Similarly, an acquittal in a criminal trial cannot be equated with the factual innocence of the defendant. Acquittals may result from many differing factors. In R v Z, Lord Hobhouse pointed out that:

The evidence relating to one incident taken in isolation may be unconvincing. It may depend upon a straight conflict of evidence between two people. It may leave open seemingly plausible explanations. The guilt of the defendant may not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. ²³

The discussion of false allegations sometimes involves a claim that they are common and easily made. ²⁵ It is argued that such beliefs are informed by negative cultural attitudes towards women in which they are portrayed as unbelievable, malicious liars ²⁶ and that these beliefs impact on social and institutional responses to rape. ²⁷ The depiction of women as malicious liars is contradicted by existing data which suggest that allegations arising from a malicious motive are a relatively small subset of the total number of false accusations. ²⁸ Indeed, to be properly understood, it is important to note that there are a number of types of non-malicious false allegation which likely comprise most cases. First, there is a distinction to be made between a maliciously motivated false accusation and errors made in good faith by professionals ²⁹ or complainants who genuinely believe they have been raped, but this belief is rooted in some form of medical condition. ³⁰ Second, there are false allegations that result from a desire for sympathy, attention or some form of assistance. ³¹ Third, a good faith false accusation might be made by a third party arising out of a genuine concern for the safety of another person whom they believe has been raped. ³²

A fourth type of non-malicious allegation involves a complainant who goes to the police but is unsure as to whether non-consensual sex took place when they were heavily intoxicated. After investigation, there appears to be no evidence to corroborate the suspicion. ³³ Kelly et al. excluded such cases from the category of false allegations and created a separate category of ‘no evidence of assault’. ³⁴ It is certainly the case that in many genuine rapes, there is no forensic or other corroborating evidence. ³⁵ As such, ‘no evidence of assault’ cases do not fit easily within the false allegation category because the allegations itself is uncertain and it is therefore inappropriate to label the allegation as false. A fifth type of non-malicious allegation is a ‘false account’ which is an allegation that is partially but not wholly untrue. ³⁶ Sixth, a false allegation may result from mistaken identification by witnesses. ³⁷ In this category of case, a rape has occurred but the wrong person is identified as the perpetrator. ³⁸ Lastly, a person may wrongly allege rape without understanding what the legal definition of rape entails. ³⁹ Recognising the existence of non-malicious allegations is an important means of challenging social attitudes that presume a malicious motive. However, altering perceptions of rape and false allegations requires a willingness to educate and engage with this subject matter.

False Allegations as a Legitimate Topic of Concern?

It has been argued that discussing the issue of false rape allegations is dangerous because it may feed into societal myths concerning women as untrustworthy, malicious liars. ⁴⁰ It is also claimed that discussing falsity may lead to a ‘backlash against believing victims’. ⁴¹ The spectre of false allegations can impact perceptions of rape ⁴² and there is contemporary domestic evidence that some police officers believe that a very large number of rape allegations are false. ⁴³ Evidence from North America suggests that for some police officers, a belief that an allegation is untrue might be influenced by stereotypical beliefs about how a genuine victim of rape should behave. Such beliefs may also impact the investigative process. ⁴⁴ Given such misunderstandings, it is not unreasonable to argue that a focus on the issue, particularly if it is ill-informed, could fuel stereotypical beliefs and influence the treatment of rape complainants by criminal justice professionals ⁴⁵ and wider society. Further, it has been argued that focusing on false allegations is a diversion from the much more common problem of sexual violence ⁴⁶ and the mischaracterisation of false allegations risks undermining all rape complainants. ⁴⁷

To argue that discussions around false accusations are dangerous fails to distinguish careful, evidence-based approaches to the topic from ill-informed discussions, influenced by myths and mischaracterisations. In an area where there is clear evidence of confusion and mistaken assertions of fact, it is important that errors are challenged and counterarguments are properly made. ⁴⁸ Further, the danger argument fails to take account of the interests of those who are falsely accused. The falsely accused have a legitimate basis for arguing that they are victims of wrongdoing. In some instances, this victim status is recognised in law. Criminal charges relating to perverting the course of justice and wasting police time reflect the wastage of resources and harm done to the criminal justice process that relies on truth telling by witnesses. ⁴⁹ When a case involves a targeted false allegation, the person who is falsely accused is a secondary victim of this criminal conduct. Such a person has legal standing to request a review of a CPS decision to refuse to prosecute a person who makes a false allegation ⁵⁰ and while it cannot be assumed that large numbers of false allegations are directed at a specific individual, this is no comfort to those who are targeted, arrested or charged. ⁵¹ The falsely accused, along with family members, may suffer a range of serious consequences, ⁵² including social stigma, stress and anxiety, ⁵³ threats, violence, ⁵⁴ harassment ⁵⁵ criminal investigation, ⁵⁶ social service intervention ⁵⁷ court proceedings and imprisonment. ⁵⁸ In some extreme cases, false allegations can result in the target of the allegation being killed. ⁵⁹ There is also evidence emerging that false and seemingly malicious allegations of wrongdoing are sometimes made in the course of racial harassment. ⁶⁰ As such, the severity of potential or actual harm resulting from false allegations provides a further basis for seeing the falsely accused as legitimate victims and deserving of fair treatment.

The suggestion that the discussion of false allegations is dangerous for victims of sexual violence runs counter to crucial trends in the training of professionals working in criminal justice, medicine and other specialist fields where the risks associated with poor professional decision making and work practices are widely recognised. ⁶¹ For example, there exists a large literature concerning the accurate identification of cases involving child abuse and neglect in order to assist professionals in the avoidance of error. ⁶² The impact of errors that give rise to false accusations has led to it being recognised as a cause of miscarriages of justice. ⁶³ Indeed, exoneration data from North America suggest that false and misleading forensic evidence, official misconduct, perjury or false allegations, mistaken witness identification and false confessions are a contributory cause of wrongful convictions in sexual assault, child sexual abuse and other criminal cases. ⁶⁴

The importance of developing robust working practices to minimise the risk of error also exist in other contexts. Research has examined the problem of professionals asking leading questions of child sexual abuse complainants and the danger this poses for the credibility of their evidence in legal proceedings. ⁶⁵ The need for appropriate questioning in child sexual abuse cases has led to the training and accreditation of officers, along with guidance on appropriate interviewing practices. ⁶⁶ Research has found that human memory can be flawed and may be externally influenced by such things as manipulation or trauma. ⁶⁷ While this is an area of controversy, there is little doubt that some memories of sexual violence and abuse are inaccurate or even completely false. ⁶⁸ Research has also examined the issue of retractions in self-reports of sexual victimisation and why a disclosure of victimisation at one point may be retracted when the survey is repeated at a later time. ⁶⁹ Finally, there is an emerging literature that examines the underresearched area of avoiding false positive results in quantitative studies of sensitive life events, including sexual violence. ⁷⁰

All these areas of research or efforts to improve professional practice possess elements that could be used to fuel cynicism around rape or sexual abuse allegations and promote disbelief in the testimony of victims. Thus, they could all be seen as potentially dangerous. To criticise ill-informed attitudes concerning false allegations and also suggest that the topic should not be discussed for fear of fuelling disbelief of victims, is a flawed approach. Silence on the topic only serves to perpetuate myths and stereotypes the critics seek to challenge. There exists a large academic and practitioner literature in this area which serves to educate, identify poor professional practice and suggests improved evidence-based approaches to reduce error and better understand risk and the pathways to false accusation. This approach improves the accuracy of professionals decision-making, as well as the results of police officer interviews with complainants. Indeed, researchers have noted the existence of a ‘heathy debate’ concerning the substantiation of child maltreatment allegations and issues of future risk. ⁷¹ The research literature and associated debates can also further the development of new knowledge and understanding.

How Common Are False Allegations?

The rate at which false allegations are said to occur is highly dependent on the measure that is used to count them. Most domestic studies examine the prevalence or incidence of false allegations in the context of rape and a small number consider other criminal wrongdoing such as assault ⁷² and domestic violence. ⁷³ There are limitations to our current knowledge on the prevalence or incidence of false allegations because research studies use measures of falsity that vary in terms of reliability, ⁷⁴ with few authors recognising this problem or the differing measures of falsity used by researchers and criminal justice professionals. ⁷⁵ All the studies in this area have two inherent limitations. The first is that false allegations are hard to identify in the absence of evidence establishing that an allegation is untrue. As such, without the existence of evidence proving falsity, it is almost impossible to identify such cases unless the complainant later retracts the allegation. The second limitation is that retractions may not be genuine and could result from threats or manipulation. Therefore, researchers are hampered in identifying an accurate false allegation rate. Further, it cannot be assumed that these two limitations offset each other. In addition there is little consistency in the methodologies adopted in the false allegation studies conducted around the world and many studies have little or no credibility. ⁷⁶ This partly explains the enormous variation in the falsity rates which are as low as 0.6 per cent ⁷⁷ and as high as 90 per cent. ⁷⁸ Reviews of the more rigorous international studies suggest a false allegation rate of 2–8 per cent ⁷⁹ and 2–10 per cent ⁸⁰ of rape offences initially recorded as crimes by the police. While most of the studies that produce results within this lower range are better than those suggesting much higher rates of falsity, the inherent limitations of existing study methodologies mean that the data should be read with caution.

Domestic research has used a range of measures when determining the rate of false allegations of rape. Some studies use the Home Office Counting Rules (HOCR) criteria which stipulate that when the police are determining whether to cancel a recorded offence of rape (i.e. to remove it as a recorded offence), they may do so inter alia where ‘additional verifiable information [AVI] determines that no notifiable crime occurred’. ⁸¹ Essentially, this is a proxy measure for false allegations and is arguably the best means by which to measure falsity. ⁸² The absence of corroborative evidence of rape does not fulfil the AVI standard and where there is uncertainty as to what has occurred the HOCR stipulate that the ‘rape must remain recorded’. ⁸³ Instead, falsity must be proven through the use of such things as CCTV evidence, compelling witness evidence or a genuine retraction of the allegation by a complainant. ⁸⁴ The AVI standard cannot be made out due to an investigating officer’s hunch ⁸⁵ or by ignoring relevant evidence when deciding to cancel an allegation. ⁸⁶ Two domestic studies using the AVI standard have found false allegation rates of 7.9 per cent ⁸⁷ and 7.7 per cent. ⁸⁸ In the largest domestic study of its type, Kelly et al. found a rate of 3 per cent ‘possible’ or ‘probable’ false rape allegations. ⁸⁹ Research by Burton et al. also found a 3 per cent false reporting rate in rape cases and a 2 per cent rate in assault cases based on a definition of falsity involving a malicious motive. ⁹⁰ Thus in these four studies, there are three differing measures of falsity. Burton et al.’s counting of malicious allegations is a narrower measure of falsity than that adopted by Kelly et al. or the two AVI studies. As a result, Burton et al. may have underestimated the rate of false reporting in their sample of cases because false allegations encompass a much broader range of motivational and casual factors, than malice alone. ⁹¹

A 17-month CPS study of false allegations of rape and domestic violence in which the accuser was prosecuted for perverting the course of justice or wasting police time identified 121 suspects. Of these, ‘35 were prosecuted: 25 for perverting the course of justice and ten for wasting police time’. ⁹² This research has been widely cited as confirming false allegations are rare, ⁹³ ‘extremely rare’ ⁹⁴ and that all allegations outside of the narrow category of prosecutions are true. ⁹⁵ The CPS report authors acknowledged that analysis of data in this area is ‘not an exact science’ ⁹⁶ but rejected the suggestion that false allegations of rape or domestic evidence are ‘rife’. ⁹⁷ In critiquing the report, it is important to consider whether prosecutions are a reliable measure of falsity and whether there exist factors that may impact on the reliability of the CPS data.

First, as a general observation, it should be acknowledged that the CPS study adopted an unusual measure to count false allegations: criminal prosecution. While the measure has the important advantage of requiring an evidential basis before describing an allegation as false, prosecutions are not normally used to measure criminality. The reason is that such a narrow point of measurement will miss criminality that does not come to the attention of prosecutors. Second, there is the possibility that some of those who are prosecuted may be genuine victims of rape. ⁹⁸ As such, a prosecution cannot be equated with guilt. Third, a study of prosecutions will only concern those cases that have satisfied the CPS charging guidelines, including the need for a reasonable prospect of conviction and the prosecution must be in the public interest. ⁹⁹ In some instances, however, evidence of falsity will not exist—it is difficult to uncover evidence to prove a negative. Indeed, it has been noted that ‘attempts to determine whether a person is falsely charging a rape may be unfalsifiable’. ¹⁰⁰

Fourth, in determining whether it is in the public interest to bring a prosecution, the CPS guidance to prosecutors states that prosecutions will be ‘extremely rare’ ¹⁰¹ and encourages them to take account of a broad range of vulnerability factors: ‘The vulnerabilities of the suspect under consideration must be properly assessed and taken into account. Mental health issues, learning difficulties, age, maturity and substance misuse issues may have an impact at both stages of the Full Code test’. ¹⁰² This echoes the wider literature which suggests that many false accusers are vulnerable in the sense of being young ¹⁰³ or suffering from mental health problems, ¹⁰⁴ Munchausen by Proxy, ¹⁰⁵ learning disabilities, ¹⁰⁶ or narcolepsy. ¹⁰⁷ In their analysis of 30 cases involving false allegations, McNamara et al. found false claims were made in relation to a range of criminal offences ¹⁰⁸ and resulted from such factors as mental illness and financial problems. Both males and females also made false allegations to gain ‘attention and sympathy’. ¹⁰⁹ Such people, they argue ‘utilise an event they believe will yield the strongest response from others’. ¹¹⁰

Thus, it can be argued that there are legitimate welfare concerns that arise in the context of prosecuting false accusers. The CPS report acknowledged the ‘complex nature’ ¹¹¹ of false allegation cases and the vulnerability of many false accusers only adds to this complexity. ¹¹² The CPS report also notes that prosecutors need to take ‘great care’ before criminalising a young person who has made a false allegation. ¹¹³ More generally, the stigma of a criminal conviction may have a particularly onerous impact on a young, vulnerable person. Indeed, the prosecution of the vulnerable may aggravate existing mental health conditions and lead to self-harm or suicide. ¹¹⁴ It might also be that a mentally ill person has made a false allegation in the genuine belief that they have been raped. ¹¹⁵ In such cases, it might will be inappropriate to charge a person with a criminal offence. These types of factors may have resulted in the police not forwarding case files to the CPS for its consideration, thus impacting the number of false allegation cases considered for prosecution. ¹¹⁶ Therefore, it can be argued that there are good reasons why cases might not be prosecuted, but lack of prosecutions cannot be equated with the absence of false accusations. For these reasons the CPS study is not a reliable source of information on how often false allegations are made.

This leaves us with a contentious area of policy and research where uncertainties abound and gaps in our existing understanding of the topic remain. Despite scholarly claims that the rate of false allegations is ‘extremely rare’, ¹¹⁷ the limitations inherent within the existing research literature mean that it is impossible to know the accuracy of this assertion. ¹¹⁸ The existing estimates, even when derived from research using the best methodologies available, are still only estimates, with factors potentially inflating or deflating them. This suggests a need for caution. This does not mean, however, that there is a robust empirical basis for arguing that the rate is much higher. If the estimate range of 2–8 per cent or 2–10 per cent was much higher, for example, 30–40 per cent then this would create some pressing concerns for the police, prosecutors and Parliament that the lower rates do not. ¹¹⁹ It can therefore be argued that the lower range tells us something important. For example, it can be stated that there is no robust body of evidence pointing beyond the high-end estimates of 8–10 per cent. As such, any generalised suspicion of rape complainants is unwarranted. However, two points remain. First, while the data tell us something, we do not know how much we can trust the research because of its methodological weaknesses. Telling an imperfect story is not the same thing as establishing a scientifically reliable truth. Second, there is a risk that the uncertainties around the lower end estimates will be ignored and the interests of the accused sidelined in order to focus on the interests of rape victims. ¹²⁰ In reality, protecting the interests of the accuser and accused are not mutually exclusive. Further, due process protections for the accused do not rest on the existence of false or malicious accusations, they exist out of a need to restrain the power of the state and ensure procedural justice, irrespective of guilt or innocence. The interests of accuser and accused are better served by a careful reading of evidence and the avoidance of claims that false allegations are either a ‘fiction’, ‘extremely rare’ or an ‘epidemic’. ¹²¹

There is a need for caution when citing any of the better studies in this area and avoiding characterisations of the findings as suggesting certainty, when none exists. The limits of adopted methodologies matter, and it is better to acknowledge uncertainty where it exists. This may encourage a more responsible use of the existing data, particularly in the use of the higher end estimate data which is generally of poor quality. Those who favourably cite a widely referenced higher estimate study conducted by Eugene Kanin often ignore its limitations ¹²² and the fact that Kanin himself urged caution in the interpretation of his results. He pointed out that ‘our intent is not to suggest that the 41% incidence found here be extrapolated to other populations, particularly in light of our ignorance regarding the structural variables that might be influencing such behavior’. ¹²³ Kanin is one of the few authors to make explicit reference to the limited application of his own findings and it is indicative of the way false allegation data are used that few people favourably citing his work acknowledge Kanin’s own words of caution. This article will proceed by discussing the data that are the subject of the article and includes a detailed discussion of the adopted methodology.

Methodology

This research is based upon data provided by a support organisation for individuals who purport to have been falsely accused of criminality, including rape, child sexual abuse, child abuse/neglect, assault and other wrongdoing. These data are comprised of a self-selecting sample of persons as part of 701 cases from 2008 (n = 361) to 2010 (n = 340). All the quantitative data are derived from individuals who contacted the support organisation for assistance with their case. ¹²⁴ As a result, the research population is self-selecting and cannot be taken to be representative of those who purport to be falsely accused, generally. The support group gathered the data over the phone or via email at the point of first contact by a representative of said organisation. ¹²⁵ The data provided to the authors were not collected with evaluation in mind. This means that the data set is limited in terms of its scope and in some respects, incomplete. The data were obtained, stored and used in accordance with appropriate university ethics rules.

An obvious limitation to the adopted methodology is that there is no way of objectively proving that a person who contacted the support organisation was a victim of a false allegation. Similar issues are acknowledged in the context of research involving sexual violence. Russell and Bolen note that research participants may falsely claim to be victims of sexual violence but argue that it is unlikely because the motives that lead people to make false allegations (e.g. revenge) are absent in research interviews. ¹²⁶ This is true but does not preclude false claims in order, for example, to gain attention. ¹²⁷ Russell and Bolen are an exception in the field: They acknowledge that research involving victim self-reports may include participants who falsely claim victim status. Indeed, for methodological reasons, it is often not possible for researchers to verify what they are told. Some studies do gather information from multiple sources to better understand criminal victimisation and agency responses or design surveys to enhance the reliability of quantitative findings. ¹²⁸ However, to require such a standard in all research would make it difficult, if not impossible to conduct studies of the victim experience ¹²⁹ and thereby impede the acquisition of valuable information.

In this study, it is possible that the data include some individuals who were not falsely accused. Some of those who contacted the support organisation may have sought advice and support as part of their unwillingness to confront their own criminal behaviour or wrongdoing, while others could have been attention seeking. Those engaged in sexually abusive conduct may deny an accusation because they may fear becoming ‘despised and rejected’, ¹³⁰ they may fear the legal consequences of an admission or may deny the impact, responsibility or participation in wrongdoing. ¹³¹ However, some of these factors (e.g. the legal consequences of an admission) are probably less likely to drive denial in a support context than in legally-related environments.

The support organisation makes clear that it exists to assist innocent people and not offenders. However, this may not prevent actual offenders from seeking assistance. Thus, the data presented here, as with data derived from other self-identified victim studies, might be wholly accurate, wholly inaccurate or somewhere in between. For example, it might be that some of those who claimed to have been falsely accused had not been specifically accused of anything. Instead, they may have been under suspicion during a police or social services investigation and may have felt accused but without any direct allegation being made. In such circumstances, there may be little difference in how the falsely accused and falsely suspected experience the situation. ¹³² However, one cannot reject the method adopted in the current study simply because it involves people who purport to be victims of false allegations when data from self-identified victims are widely used in other areas of study, including sexual violence research.

A previous study of false allegations adopted a method to gain some degree of verification of the claim of being falsely accused by examining only cases resulting in certain outcomes, including acquittal or a decision not to prosecute. ¹³³ More recently, a study by Hoyle et al. only included participants who were deemed ‘legally innocent’. In addition to signing a declaration of innocence, participants had to fulfil three criteria: they were not charged, were acquitted or a conviction was overturned on appeal but not for reasons ‘unrelated to innocence’. ¹³⁴ As with other measures of falsity, these criteria have their limitations ¹³⁵ but offer a means of reducing the chances of including participants who are legally guilty. The current study data included a relatively small number of cases with those who said they were convicted or charged (3.5 and 7.4 per cent, respectively) but did not include data on appeals against conviction, successful or otherwise. ¹³⁶ Nor did the data include information on the eventual outcome of criminal charges. While such cases may increase the likelihood that the data include those who are falsely denying criminal behaviour, miscarriages of justice involve both charge and conviction. Further, charging is not itself a measure of actual guilt, hence the need for a criminal trial. Given the heavily anonymised nature of the data, it has not been possible for the authors to seek further information on outcomes.

Finally, it must be acknowledged that the data were obtained through a self-selecting sample. This means that the individuals as part of the 701 cases ¹³⁷ may not be representative of the population at large and therefore cannot be used to accurately generalise beyond this particular sample. However, self-selecting samples are quite common in social science research ¹³⁸ and not unexpected in the current research given the sensitivity and nature of the topic. The authors recognise that while this is the largest data set of its kind, the findings are not readily generalisable. ¹³⁹ Instead, this research should be seen as a case study of individuals who purport to be falsely accused and have contacted a support organisation for help.

Quantitative Findings

The data discussed below are based on the total participant population of 701 cases. However, there are some missing data which is why there are not complete data sets for each category of analysis and the size of the sample in each analysis differs.

Implications and a Future Research Agenda

The data set out in this article indicate that the majority of purported false accusations were by females against males who were family members or intimates concerning child abuse/neglect and sexual offences (child sexual abuse, rape, indecent and sexual assault) with the majority of those accused seeking support and advice at the point of accusation. ¹⁵¹ The prominence of purported false allegations within the family environment and intimate relationships may reflect interpersonal dynamics, along with the opportunity to falsely accuse. Reaching out for support at the point of accusation suggests that those who purport to be falsely accused experience accusation as a challenging life event for which they need support and advice. Indeed, evidence suggests that the immediate impact of being accused involves ‘falling into a state of shock, experiencing nausea and nervousness, and feeling “stunned” and “surreal,” as if being in “a bad dream”’. ¹⁵² Assuming similar responses in this study sample, it is unsurprising that so many participants made contact and did so at the point of accusation. The point of contact data also suggested that many of the allegations involved formal investigation or some form of legal proceedings.

Further, the data indicated that 31–40 years was the largest age category, but accused people included senior citizens and a small number of children who were purported to be falsely accused. One issue that does arise in the context of children accused of criminal wrongdoing is the potential harm that publicity and resultant stigma could cause. While the anonymity of most children is already protected, it cannot be assumed that there are no gaps in current protections. In a recent review of the youth justice system, it was recommended that the Ministry of Justice examine whether to extend automatic reporting restrictions operating in the Youth Court to the Crown Court to ensure child suspects under police investigation are not identified. ¹⁵³ The presence of children in the study data also raises questions concerning their appropriate support needs.

The data highlight the wide range of purported false allegations that were reported, including allegations involving criminal offences such as rape, physical and sexual assault. Overall, females were more likely than males to make allegations against males and other females, but accusations by males were sizeable: 11 per cent of child abuse/neglect and 24 per cent of child sexual abuse accusations were made by male accusers. The large number of female accusers in the current study reflects other research which suggests that females are more likely to make false allegations than males in the context of sexual offences. ¹⁵⁴ The data in the current study go beyond such a narrow range of alleged wrongdoing, thereby making broader comparisons with previous research difficult. However, the new data in this study does point to the need for a more nuanced picture of who makes purported false allegations and the nature of the alleged wrongdoing.

The data also reveal a phenomenon largely ignored in previous research: females who purported to have been falsely accused of criminality and other wrongdoing. ¹⁵⁵ Much discussion on false allegations tends to focus on males who are accused by females of crimes such as rape or child sexual abuse. This reflects an empirical reality: Most accusations involving sexual offences, genuine or otherwise tend to be made by females against males. Despite this, several previous studies have made reference to false allegations made by males, ¹⁵⁶ as well as against females. ¹⁵⁷ In the current study, out of those cases where information was available, one in five purported false accusations (19.7 per cent) were made against females. There were also a small number of allegations directed at males and females together (6.3 per cent). There are several possible explanations for the number of females found in the data, particularly in the context of allegations pertaining to child abuse and neglect. First, there is the role of women as the primary carers of children. As primary carers, they may be more likely to be accused or come under suspicion, compared to someone with less contact with a child. ¹⁵⁸ Second, another possible explanation involves domestic violence or coercive control cases in which a male makes a malicious allegation of child abuse or neglect against a female partner, particularly in cases of relationship breakdown. ¹⁵⁹

The third reason for the larger number of females in the current study, compared to earlier research ¹⁶⁰ is the inclusion of a wider range of wrongdoing. The findings differ significantly from the CPS charging study discussed earlier which found that 98 per cent of those falsely accused were male. This can be explained by the fact that the CPS study focused primarily on accusations of rape ¹⁶¹ and domestic violence. Thus, it excluded a wide range of criminal behaviour and other wrongdoing that are covered in the current study data. While this data broadly support the existing gendered narrative, the picture is more complex and requires recognition of allegations that go beyond those made by females against males. Indeed, the context and impact of false accusations on females is poorly understood and requires further examination. ¹⁶²

In addition to the issues already directly raised by the study data, there are several other topics that require further consideration but cannot be fully addressed using the current study data. The stigma and associated harms that attach to those who are convicted of violent crimes, along with family members has been the subject of careful scholarly analysis. ¹⁶³ Indeed, the judiciary has acknowledged that the ‘criminal activities of a parent can bring misery, shame, and disadvantage to their children. Innocent parents suffer from the criminal activities of their sons and daughters. Husbands and wives and partners all suffer all suffer in the same way’. ¹⁶⁴ By contrast, there is less known about the extent to which accusations are stigmatising and lead to other harms. The data that do exist suggest that accusations can have a wide range of serious effects including illness, social isolation, loss of social support, job loss, financial hardship, stress and family breakdown. ¹⁶⁵ The evidence, however is limited.

The current data set does not provide information on the pathways to false allegation. The wider literature suggests that there a range of factors that lead to false allegations, including psychological factors, ¹⁶⁶ poor interviewing skills by professionals, ¹⁶⁷ professional error, ¹⁶⁸ implanted memories, ¹⁶⁹ intoxication ¹⁷⁰ and mental health problems or learning disabilities. ¹⁷¹ One future direction of research would be to use a large data set to examine the pathways to accusation in terms of who makes an initial allegation, its characteristics, impact on the accused and nature of any institutional intervention. This may yield important data on the impact of allegations, the origins of purported false allegations and the tracking of case outcomes, including arrest, prosecution and conviction. The current data set suggests that few purported false accusations lead to a clear criminal justice outcome, but the data cannot provide a robust explanation for this finding.

Another issue that often arises in discussions concerning false allegations is the subject of anonymity for those who are accused of serious criminal offences, usually sexual offences. ¹⁷² The data in the current study do provide findings that might be of particular interest to those opposed to anonymity in sexual offence cases. ¹⁷³ The study data point to purported false allegations going beyond sexual offences and involving a wide range of other crimes or wrongdoing. For example, the largest category of alleged wrongdoing concerned child abuse/neglect which at 29 per cent of cases where information is available is double the rate of purported false allegations involving child sexual abuse (12.4 per cent). One way in which the issue of false allegations is raised in the debate over anonymity is to link it to a claim that allegations of rape or child sexual abuse are uniquely stigmatising. ¹⁷⁴ During the parliamentary debates that followed a 2010 government proposal to reintroduce anonymity for rape defendants, a number of MPs pointed out that the proposal was ‘singling out’ rape and would only be appropriate if the false reporting rate was higher than for other crimes. ¹⁷⁵ Indeed, one MP argued that it was likely that other crimes, not only allegations of rape have a ‘deleterious effect on one’s reputation, on one’s standing in society, and on one’s capacity to hold down a job, hold a family together and live a normal life’. ¹⁷⁶

Some parliamentary proponents of anonymity linked stigma and false allegations by referring, for example, to the ‘extreme suffering…caused…to those falsely accused’. ¹⁷⁷ The issue of stigma is undoubtedly an interesting one. The current research on this specific topic is limited. In 2013, it was noted that the stigma associated with paedophilia has been an area neglected by scholars. ¹⁷⁸ Recent research exploring this subject suggests that the label ‘paedophile’ attracts strong social stigma ¹⁷⁹ and that this stigma is greater than that which attaches to some other stigmatised groups. ¹⁸⁰ It is the case however, that significant gaps remain in our understanding of these issues and more research is necessary. ¹⁸¹ Indeed, there is an absence of robust research on the stigma associated with accusations of serious criminality generally, including violent crime. Further, there is a need for more nuance in the discussion of the topic. Issues of age, gender, the identity of the accuser, nature of alleged wrongdoing and their relationship to stigma raise crucial issues that require robust comparative research. There is currently no empirically based case for singling out rape or other sexual offence cases given the range of purported false allegations found in this study.

Another gap in the existing research literature is whether purported false allegations made to the police have differing consequences for falsely accused suspects, compared to those under suspicion in the context of social service or medico-legal investigations. There is currently no research that robustly compares how criminal and child protection investigations are experienced by those under suspicion nor whether the safeguards offered to criminal suspects under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and Codes of Practice lessen the emotional and psychological impact of criminal investigations compared to social service or medico-legal investigations.

Conclusion

The data discussed in this article provide fresh insight into the nature and characteristics of purported false allegations of rape, child sexual abuse, child abuse/neglect and other forms of wrongdoing. The data indicate that most of those accused are male, and most accusers, female. However, there are other findings that require acknowledgement. As a proportion of cases where data were available, 19.7 per cent of those purported to be falsely accused were female, 6.3 per cent were jointly accused with a male, with one case involved a female accused with another female. Further, males made up a sizeable minority of those who made purported false allegations. As a proportion of cases where data were available, 19.3 per cent of those who made allegations were male and in 2.9 per cent of cases a male made an allegation with a female. ¹⁸² These findings enable us to do two things. First, it provides a basis to be able to challenge misunderstandings about who makes allegations that are purported to be false and against whom. While the data support existing gendered narratives, the number of male accusers and females accused does suggest that there is a need for a more nuanced narrative around the issue.

The findings also suggest that there is a need to move beyond a narrow focus on purported false rape or child sexual abuse accusations, which are often raised in debates over defendant anonymity. While many accusations in the data fall within the realm of sexual offences, other areas of alleged wrongdoing are also in evidence. This may serve to challenge the framing of debates concerning anonymity: The singling out of rape as a particular problem in regards to false allegations is difficult to justify when there exists data showing that a wider range of wrongdoing also attracts purported false allegations.

Finally, this article has sought to legitimise the measured, evidence-based discussion of false allegations. Discussion of the topic is required otherwise it will continue to be shrouded in confusion and error. Framing the discussion of the subject in terms of danger or to claim that it is not the real issue of concern is not a robust basis from which to challenge rape myths, help victims of crime, the falsely accused or guide policy development. The subject should be discussed using evidence, rational argument and with an acknowledgment of methodological limitations and resultant uncertainty, where it exists. To remain silent on a controversial topic in the face of myths and ignorance is likely to do more harm than good in terms of societal attitudes and professional practice.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Age of the accused.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Gender of accused.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Gender of accuser.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

Type of wrongdoing alleged.