Table of Contents
We live in a time of near-universal deceit. Lies are all around us. All-too-often, lies are the stock in trade of the very same people finger-wagging us about “harmful misinformation”.
The lies of the powerful and their media lickspittles are too numerous and too obvious to enumerate, but one of the most damaging biggies is “believe victims”. As if no one, especially, we are often explicitly told, women ever lie about rape or assault.
For a start, this is what’s known in the logic biz as “circular logic”: “What I say is true because what I say is true”. Put like that, a child can see through the obvious lie. But, frame it as “believe women”, and no one is allowed to question it.
We are getting dangerously close to swapping fundamental values in our criminal justice system for the Queen of Hearts’ edict in Alice in Wonderland. “ No, no!” said the Queen, to the suggestion that a jury be allowed to consider its verdict. “Sentence first – verdict afterwards.”
No one wants to imagine that women lie about sexual assault or about assault.
And no one can seriously argue that all women lie about either. That’s as foolishly circular logic as its opposite.
However, we do know for certain that some women lie about both. Indeed, every rape charge that fails in court is, ipso facto, an allegation that the complainant lied. This is, of course, surely not the case: true accusations may fail because of a lack of evidence, clever defence lawyers, or any number of reasons.
Nonetheless, we know for certain that a surprising number of rape accusations are lies. Estimates vary from 5% to as high as 25%. Even at the lower end, that’s still twice as common as false accusations about other serious crimes.
But making a false accusation is a serious crime in itself. So, why aren’t more women charged with it?
Equality means legal consequences should attach to a liar, whether they are male or female. When people lie to police, wasting resources and time that could be better spent elsewhere, making false accusations to deliberately hurt another person, imperilling their liberty, there should be criminal consequences. If there are no consequences, we will lose faith in the criminal justice system, and, as with any other unpoliced crime, lies may become more frequent.
In one recent case, the lie was so egregious that the woman was indeed jailed — although her new partner, a police officer who abetted the false allegations and perjured himself, escaped a prison sentence.
Then there’s the case of Harry Garside.
Harry Garside was caught in a web of lies. The young boxer with dreams of gold at the next Olympics was arrested in May, in front of cameras, for allegedly assaulting his former girlfriend, Ashley Ruscoe […]
Ruscoe accused him of assault. Police had carried out no investigation. Ruscoe’s word was enough.
The police followed the mantra of “believe women” — and ruined a man’s life.
The damage from her unproven, untested allegation was enormous. Following the arrest, Garside lost sponsorships worth $500,000. Boxing Australia and the Victorian Institute of Sport, where he had a scholarship, suspended him.
Garside told police that it was Ruscoe who in fact assaulted and threatened him. But who’d believe a boxer that he’d let a mere woman assault him? Fortunately, Garside was savvy enough to film and audio record their confrontations.
The young boxer started filming the incident when he sensed things were getting out of hand. Further evidence, in audio clips, reveal Ruscoe threatening to go to police even though she knew he had done nothing wrong. Evidence such as this: Ruscoe: I can call the cops right now, and they will take you. This will go on your record and this will go straight to the Daily Mail and this will ruin your f..king image. I could literally with this call ruin your career, trust me.
Garside: I haven’t done anything wrong.
Ruscoe: It doesn’t matter, Harry.
Eventually, police dropped the charges against Garside and instead charged Ruscoe with assault and stalking. That matter is still before the courts, so of course it stands as unproven. Ruscoe is, too, entitled to the presumption of innocence.
But many people are asking why hasn’t Ruscoe been charged with making a false statement to police. The presumption of innocence would apply to that too, and the matter would be settled as any other criminal matter should be – with evidence put to a judge, and/or jury.
If Ruscoe knowingly made a false statement to police, that is a criminal offence. It can lead to a substantial fine, time in jail and, of course, the public shame of having been shown to have lied to ruin a former lover.
Garside’s lawyers — both women — are under no delusions that women never lie.
As Garside’s lawyer, Rebekah Giles, told me: “There are cases where malicious lies are concocted by a party with the sole intent to damage an accused. I’ve seen evidence destroyed, tampered with, investigating police told bald-faced lies.
“I have seen this occur with devastating effect to the defendant – even if they are exonerated. The accuser – even when faced with clear evidence of dishonesty – walks away from the devastation caused with the protection of anonymity and little remorse, having achieved their intended objective of publicly smearing the reputation of the accused, who is left emotionally and financially depleted. The cost to the accused (and the taxpayers) of some of the cases I have been involved in are eye-watering.
The Australian
The cost to justice is even worse.
Every time a woman maliciously and knowingly lies about rape or assault, and gets away with it, the entire system of justice is diminished. For women and men alike. As Rebekah Giles says, “It is critical that these offenders are brought to justice so that that the limited resources of police and prosecutors are focused on genuine complaints”.
Equality, after all, must include equality of accountability.
