news.com.au
Sydney man plans to sue police after two years battling rape allegations

EXCLUSIVE
A SYDNEY man who battled for two years to clear his name of rape and assault allegations has vowed to sue police for acting like “robots” and ignoring crucial evidence.
The man, who is in his 40s, had been accused by his estranged wife of sexual intercourse without consent and assault occasioning actual bodily harm but was acquitted of the charges by a District Court jury.
The trial judge slammed the way the case was handled and said such serious charges should never have been brought against the man, who spent $200,000 in legal fees defending the charges.
He also spent more than a month behind bars until he was granted bail.
Police refused to drop the charges despite being handed photographic evidence — including email and text exchanges — that cast serious doubt on his wife’s version of events.
Judge Mark Williams labelled the prosecution case into the rape and assault charges as “most unsatisfactory” and lashed them for ignoring “cogent and consistent objective evidence” that supported the man’s evidence the sex was consensual.
The judge went further to say the serious charges should not have been brought against him, Fairfax reported.
The man is now planning to sue them for malicious prosecution and has condemned the officers involved in his case.

CLAIMS OF BIAS
A court order prevents either party from being identified. The man told news.com.au it was hard to articulate the “emotional stress” the ordeal had on him.
He said: “The failures as I see it are that there was no investigation ... Even the judge said, ‘at what time did you sit down and question her on the evidence?’”
The man accused officers of taking the accuser at face value. “They saw a pretty young woman who walks into a police station, she’s single, she’s a doctor, she’s from the north shore and despite having written a statement completely different [from the one] she made at another station.”
At the time, he was confident that common sense would prevail and the charges would be dropped. His view was the messages between the couple showed his estranged wife in a poor light — leaving investigators, he hoped, to question the claims she was making.

Read the rest of the story here.

juansweetpotato wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2017 7:16 pm Far worse I think, are the amount of women who falsely accuse their ex partners of child sex crimes so as to not have someone they are angry with see their own kids. The rates in British courts in visitation rights cases are apparently phenomenal.
What should the penalty be for that?

Kuroneko wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2017 7:59 pm [/img]

juansweetpotato wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2017 7:16 pm Far worse I think, are the amount of women who falsely accuse their ex partners of child sex crimes so as to not have someone they are angry with see their own kids. The rates in British courts in visitation rights cases are apparently phenomenal.
What should the penalty be for that?