False allegation of child sexual abuse
A false allegation of child sexual abuse is an accusation against one or more individuals claiming that they committed child sexual abuse when no abuse has been committed by the accused. Such accusations can be brought by the alleged victim, or by another person on the alleged victim’s behalf. Studies on the rate of recorded child abuse allegations in the 1990s suggested that the overall rate of false accusations at that time was approximately 10%.[1][2][3][4]
Of the allegations determined to be false, only a small portion originated with the child, the studies showed; most false allegations originated with an adult bringing the accusations on behalf of a child, and of those, a large majority occurred in the context of divorce and child-custody battles.[1][5]
Effect of changes to legal tests (UK)[edit]
In 2000, according to support group Falsely Accused Carers and Teachers (FACT), there was a 90% conviction rate for alleged child sex abusers, as compared to just 9% for cases of adult rape.[31]
In the UK, all the post-1970 court cases that are recognized as authorities on evidence of disposition “concern charges of sexual abuse of minors.”[32] In 1991, the House of Lords judgment in Director of Public Prosecutions versus P (D.P.P v P [1991] 2 A.C. 447) significantly lowered the barrier to admission of similar fact evidence of disposition to commit a crime.[33][34][35]
This, combined with the police practice of “trawling” for child abuse victims using door-to-door interviews and the potential for monetary compensation, has created opportunities and incentive for false allegations to occur:[36]
Normally, an allegation of a criminal offense has to stand or fall on its own merits; if a witness accusing someone of sexual abuse was sufficiently credible, or could adduce supporting evidence, then an abuser would be convicted. Until 1991, multiple allegations against the same person could only be held to be mutually corroborating if there were “striking similarities” between the alleged crimes, indicating a criminal’s “signature,” a distinct modus operandi. But the judgment removed this protection. In effect, the courts have accepted the idea of “corroboration by volume.”
In 2002, the Home Affairs Select Committee (Fourth report, 2001/2), which dealt with police trawling practices and referred to the “enormous difficulties” faced by those accused of child sexual abuse, recommended that the requirement for similar fact evidence to be linked by “striking similarities” be restored in cases involving allegations of historical child abuse. However, this recommendation contradicted the Government White Paper Justice for All (2002), which proposed lowering the threshold for the admission of similar fact evidence still further. The UK Government rejected the recommendation.[37]
Effect on the child and the accused[edit]
Allegations of sexual abuse can be inherently traumatic to the child when false.[38] People falsely charged with sexual abuse often face numerous problems of their own. The nature of the crime leveled at them often evokes an overwhelming sense of betrayal. In highly publicized cases, the general public has a strong tendency to summarily assume the accused is guilty, leading to very serious social stigma. The accused, even if acquitted, risks being fired from their job, losing their friends and other relationships, having their property vandalized or even confiscated (via civil forfeiture), and being harassed by those believing them to be guilty despite no evidence proving their guilt.
Support groups[edit]
In 2001, there were 18 support and lobby groups extant in the UK “set up to redress the injustice suffered by those who, they claim, have been wrongly convicted in abuse cases.”[31] Groups currently active in the UK include: False Allegations Against Carers and Teachers (FACT), False Allegations Support Organization (FASO), People Against False Allegations of Abuse (PAFAA with SOFAP), and SAFARI.