Rhiannon Brooker – jailed
Rhiannon Brooker
You may recall the earlier post Rhiannon Brooker Cries Rape (April 2014) reveiling the shocking details surrounding the case of a English man, in which his partner, a trainee barrister, falsely accused him of rape and assault.
One of the most disturbing aspects of this case was the extroidinary circumstances surrounding the police investigation, that saw Paul Fensome (Brooker’s partner) held in custody for five weeks, while Police investigated her allegations.
Avon and Somerset Police have since paid compensation of £38,000 to Mr Fensome for their illegal detention of the ‘offender’.
But still the inexcusable attitude toward these female offenders persists; that for some reason women should be excused for this behaviour.
A crown advocate making this statment of behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS):
“Charging someone who claims to have been raped is not a decision we take lightly.”
This comes from the same department that wants to convict men accused of rape based on a percentage of cases in which the offender ‘must be guilty’ discussed in a previous post, Boost In Rape Convictions Wanted.
There is only one way to ensure that men have reasonable protection against the threat from a female’s vicious ability to launch false accusations, and that is to have specific charges relating to false allegations of rape.
These are not false complaints to the Police – stop calling them false complaints – they are false allegations against another human being.
They are damaging, destructive and in some cases life threatening.
Brooker (30) was found guilty of 12 charges of perverting the course of justice at Bristol Crown Court and jailed for three-and-a-half years.
Far less jail time than the ‘offender’ would have recieved should he have been found guilty of Brooker’s allegations.
In sentencing, Judge Julian Lambert could not have summed it up better, saying;
Brooker, of Frampton Cotterell, South Gloucestershire, had lied in an ‘utterly wicked’ way.
Some years ago I had been accused by a fellow worker of molestation. I had no idea of the claim until confronted at work by several HR managers investigating the claim. Naturally, as a manager of people, this was a serious claim and likely to not only end my career, but have legal repercussions. The day I was accused of doing the deed I had been out of town, had been out of town that whole week and was able to prove my whereabouts the entire time. But it made me feel sick to be accused out of the blue and unjustly
Yet if I had not been able to prove my whereabouts, if I had been at my central office, this woman in her deluded state would have cost me a job, a marriage and my credibility. No one apologised, there were no consequences to her for her actions, and I was advised to keep everything quiet. Years later, I still think about the injustice of this situation, and Im thankful I left that national company
Comment by Rayjay — Fri 27th June 2014 @ 10:36 am
News report from theGuardian
Comment by Downunder — Fri 27th June 2014 @ 11:35 am
Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Im not a religious nut but they obviously thought that was a pretty big one back then. Why now do the courts not think so.
I am facing criminal charges for beating and indecently assaulting my children. We go to court in August and have opted for a full jury as i do not trust a sole judge to make an impartial decision. They wouldn’t want to be seen to be soft on male offenders. Might look bad on their CV.
The charges are driven, of course, by my ex-wife and are completely baseless. My children have provided video evidence against me which is complete nonsense and stem from a slow and incideous process of parent alienation. This increased dramatically on the birth of my 3rd child to my current partner, you know “dad dosen’t love you anymore he loves his new son more” etc etc.
I pray that justice and common sense prevails otherwise I stand to lose everything. CYF are already sniffing around. A guilty conviction will destroy my FAMILY as CYF will insist on my partner leaving the relationship or they will take my son.
My ex partner will have her revenge in totally destroying my life. Apparently she will also be up for a substantial pay out by ACC for the alledged sexual assults on my children in the area of $30,000 each. Can anyone confirm this as this is what I have been told but have been unable to verify.
What a wonderful system we have:
1) Women sponsored to leave their marriages by the lure of the DPB and freedom from patriarchal tyranny.
2) Parental rights of men at the convenience of mothers depending on what the male is prepared to pay.
3) A police goon squad at the ready to jump all over any male on the slightest sniff of trouble. The police chief announced the other day 50 extra staff have been assigned to the euphemistically named “Child Protection Division”. I prefer the “Child Abduction Division”, “The Family Destruction Division” or the “Father Persecution Division”. Ironically as the police move 50 officers into the business of separating fathers from their children permanently a 13 year old is charged with the murder of a shop keeper and an 11 year old is murdered in a fight with another child. Life loves Irony!
4) A political environment that is so pro the feminist lesbian doctrine that its frighting and looks to be gaining momentum. Good help us if labour and the greens gain the ascendancy. Just watch the commercials on TV constantly being rammed down our throats. Men are dangerous and violent.
HOW DO WE CHANGE THESE INJUSTICES. IS THERE A POLITICAL PARTY OR POLITICIAN THAT SUPPORTS US. HOW DO WE PROTECT OURSELVES.
Comment by Ritche — Fri 27th June 2014 @ 11:40 am
What a phony argument.
If a woman claims to have been raped, we expect the man to be convicted only if evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty as charged.
If a man claims a woman had deliberately and falsely accused him of rape, we would expect the woman to be convicted only if evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that she is guilty as charged.
If he raped her but there isn’t enough evidence for a conviction is by no means evidence that her claim was false.
Comment by Pete — Fri 27th June 2014 @ 12:25 pm
No making of excuses in this BBC report – just the cold-hard facts:
Comment by Downunder — Fri 27th June 2014 @ 1:25 pm
From Huffington Post
Brooker was too “distraught” to be in court while her sentence was passed.
Well, if you actually believed you could get away with this, it could be a bit of a shock to be put in touch with reality.
Comment by Downunder — Fri 27th June 2014 @ 1:31 pm
‘Playing the victim’, ‘acting girly’ ‘changing appearance to be more attractive to the opposite sex, and to get the alpha male sex and/or breeding and the money marriage (not necessarily mutually exclusive),
vindictive,
manipulative,
lying,
gossiping,
cheating,
leisure class,
pampering,
narcissistic,
pretending they are gentler and less aggressive or cruel as a gender – yet never standing up for men as a gender while men almost always stand up for women and children as a gender etc etc….
Comment by 'The Logical Song' — Fri 27th June 2014 @ 3:14 pm
Now watch what you say or they’ll be calling you a radical,
Liberal, fanatical, criminal.
Comment by Downunder — Fri 27th June 2014 @ 6:44 pm
On the facts as given including the judges comments the man appears to have been incredibly lucky. Justice should not be a matter of luck but of careful consideration of the evidence. The police failed to do their job properly. I feel for all people of either gender who suffer from CYF and police incompetence, particularly since I suffered and still suffer from the results of police incompetence and CYF maliciousness. Still there cannot be many people over 66 who have been accused in all seriousness of assault on two fit young police with a wheelbarrow and of indecent assault when diagnosing tonsillitis [and being correct]. Thus there is some humour in all situations.
Comment by andrew — Sat 28th June 2014 @ 8:10 pm
@ 9 Andrew. Yes it is on careful consideration of the evident that most men and not convicted. Dang hard to accept by the diehard super feminists and their worried political mates.
Turning my attention to this foul wrenched creature Rhiannon Brooker. There is very little consideration to what she has done and what it has cost the men. And I might add others similar to her endeavour to do.
Not withstanding this woman is in the UK, NZ has laws in place for false oaths, testimonies or declarations. Even the mere act of making a statement that is false is covered.
But as we all know the police are very selective on who they prosecute and for what. For example the police did not prosecute John Banks until it was forced upon them.
I dont know why. It could be a politically incorrect for our time or create such danger for the prosecuting officer. i.e Having the endure the extreme feminists brigade or MP out to dampen your career.
Public prosecutions are rare because the enormous cost and time involved. But I would support and I suspect others here would support MOMA and a collective to bring these types of woman to account for what they have done or attempt to do.
Reference to the following legislation follows.
Crimes act 1961 Section 109
Punishment of perjury
1) Except as provided in subsection (2), every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who commits perjury.
2) If perjury is committed in order to procure the conviction of a person for any offence for which the maximum punishment is not less than 3 years’ imprisonment, the punishment may be imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years
Section 110 of crimes act 1961
Perjury
Everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who, being required or authorised by law to make any statement on oath or affirmation, thereupon makes a statement that would amount to perjury if made in a judicial proceeding.
Section 109 of crimes act 1961
False oaths
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who, being required or authorised by law to make any statement on oath or affirmation, thereupon makes a statement that would amount to perjury if made in a judicial proceeding.
Section 111 of crimes act 1961
False statements or declarations
Everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years who, on any occasion on which he is required or permitted by law to make any statement or declaration before any officer or person authorised by law to take or receive it, or before any notary public to be certified by him as such notary, makes a statement or declaration that would amount to perjury if made on oath in a judicial proceeding.
Comment by Lukenz — Sun 29th June 2014 @ 10:08 am
LukeNZ (#10): Thanks for drawing our attention to the legislation on perjury and false statements. So perjury was seen by parliament as so serious as to be punishable by 7 years imprisonment, and 14 years if the perjury was committed in order to procure a conviction with a MAXIMUM punishment of 3 years or more! Perjury is therefore (rightfully) seen as being as serious as many sexual assaults, dishonesty crimes and violent crimes. Yet our Courts and police conveniently turn a blind eye to most perjury especially when committed by women in the Family Court, or police at most take a cursory look and decide they don’t have enough evidence of deliberate lies. But when it comes to any woman’s accusation of a male’s sexual or violent offence against her, police aggressively pursue a prosecution even without a shred of evidence beyond the complaint.
Comment by Man X Norton — Sun 29th June 2014 @ 12:00 pm
Lukenz (#10): Do you or anyone here know if these perjury laws, especially section 111, apply to ‘evidential video interviews’? In recent years these video interviews have been legislated for wider use in Court cases. For example, they can now be presented as ‘evidence-in-chief’, i.e. instead of the complainant starting the hearing by telling her story, the previously recorded video interview is simply played. This was initially intended for children but has been used increasingly for adult women alleging historical crimes and, as I understand it, for adult women who claim to find it too daunting to tell their story in Court. Also, as I understand it, this provision is used almost exclusively for female complainants against male defendants, plus some male child complainants.
The thing is that these evidential video interviews involve no oath on the part of the complainant, no instructions that the complainant’s responses should be seen as being the same as Court testimony, and no warning about false testimony. They are done in a somewhat informal context and one never knows what preparation, statement prompting etc may have immediately preceded the recorded content. The interviews include some questions that are supposed to establish that the complainant understands the difference between a truth and a lie (but even when the complainant’s answers don’t really establish that understanding such interviews seem to be introduced into the Court proceedings anyway).
The right to use these interviews as the opening of the prosecution case, i.e. as evidence-in-chief, is one of many changes over recent decades designed to make it easier to convict men accused of sexual offences. Other such changes include removal of time limitations, allowing the complainant to be cross-examined via video link to prevent the accused from facing his accuser, and restricting the areas that defence counsel is allowed to cross-examine the complainant about. Nearly all of those changes represent reductions in longstanding protection against false conviction, something that used to be seen as important in civilized societies. It just so happens that these reductions in jurisprudential protections against false conviction all relate to offences that men are most likely to be accused of. Feminists have convinced government that false conviction of men is acceptable collateral damage. Owen Glenn’s Feminist Propaganda Force now seeks to have male accused treated as guilty unless they can prove their innocence, another big stride towards a Final Solution free from the inconvenience caused by any remaining fairness in our justice system.
One problem with using video interviews as evidence-in-chief is that any lies told in the relaxed situation of the interview that was not under oath, are then seen and heard by the complainant in Court making it easier for her to repeat those lies during cross-examination and to ensure her responses remain consistent with the lies. As such, this represents yet another reduction in protection against false conviction. Previously, a complainant would give a statement that police would write, she would read or have it read to her, and she would sign it. She would then tell her account of the alleged offence in Court whereupon defence counsel had an opportunity to test inconsistencies between the complainant’s earlier statement and what she is now claiming in Court. Now, she doesn’t need to tell her account; she only needs to answer questions about the story she gave in the earlier ‘evidential video’ that she has conveniently just been fully reminded of. So what was clearly an important test of her honesty has now been subverted in those cases.
Comment by Man X Norton — Sun 29th June 2014 @ 1:45 pm
@12 Man X Norton.
Sorry I am not a lawyer and I can’t answer what limits the NZ perjury laws apply too.
But you would think that making a statement that is handed up to a high court judge at deposition that is found to be completely false should meet the requirements of the definition in section 108 of the crimes act 1961. That is;
Perjury is an assertion as to a matter of fact, opinion, belief, or knowledge made by a witness in a judicial proceeding as part of his or her evidence on oath, whether the evidence is given in open court or by affidavit or otherwise, that assertion being known to the witness to be false and being intended by him or her to mislead the tribunal holding the proceeding.
It seems however that in extreme cases when the woman has mislead or lied the most you will ever see is wasting police time which I suspect has a sentence of 1 slap cheek with a very small used wet bus ticket.
Perjury from a woman against a man in rape cases is never applied.
It would take a private prosecution to set a precedent to get that over the line.
Maybe it’s just not seen important enough when a man loses his family, job, tens of thousands of dollars, standing in the community.
Comment by Lukenz — Sun 29th June 2014 @ 10:09 pm
The only case I know is Kay Sketlon
https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/13002-kay-skelton-does-tim
Comment by Allan Harvey — Mon 30th June 2014 @ 11:44 am
Perjury is a criminal charge, related to any court – would there be specific data on which courts the perjury was committed in?
The Family Court is a secret court, and Skelton may well be the only case prosecuted because it is the only one to meet the light of day in the media.
Anyone (including a judge) can inform the police of a case of perjury, but I doubt that has ever been the situation in the Family Court.
The gender thinking there would be, ‘we don’t want women to be scared of the process’ so women become exempt from the law by policy.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 30th June 2014 @ 2:16 pm
The media response to the Brooker case has been interesting. They have generally stuck to the facts and reported the case with Brooker as the offender and the husband as the victim, with few occassionally straying into feminist dogma.
I had a run through the blog sites discussing the case and the same thinking applies (as I mentioned in the previous comment) with one Rape Protest Group saying the Crown Prosecution Service has policy relating to charging rape victims and Brooker should never have been charged because she is a rape complainant.
The thinking is beyond any rational belief – to me anyway – that these women can hold a view that they are superior to men in such a way, that law doesn’t apply to them and should not offer any protection to men.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 30th June 2014 @ 2:48 pm
Sorry to say this but its not the only one to meet the light of day (pertaining to the media).
By the conduction of Official Information Requests, the Family Court has admited that 20% of all Domestic Violence cases are false or vexatious.
Yes 20%
False? You mean a falsified legal document (affidavit) was used to arbitrarily ban a person from what is a legal entitlement. Kidnapping? the purpose of the falsified document.
Vexatious? You mean something men are going to be arbitrarily baned from doing. Not as a Psuedo Prosecuter like them, but as a Vexatious Defendant?
NO Prosecutions. No Justice!
But it gets worse, much worse.
Do you feel like I’ve led you astray.
Maybe the Judiciary can explain what telling the truth is all about.
Maybe in the example above they just arn’t able to actualy say what the truth is, and can’t prosecute anybody for perjury resulting in the suffering of others.
But its not true, sometimes science comes along and the evidence is absolute and undeniable. Like when a women says “No your honour, its him, his claim he’s not the father is false, don’t allow the paternity test.” MMM
Fill in a document(birth certificate) that actually warns you on it to not lie, one that defines on it, the crime your commiting in when you fill in that document. Then knowingly and falsely in a courtroom, lie to the Judge.
40% of paternity tests fail.
Yes 40%
NO Prosecutions. No Justice!
Thats alot of criminals that have slipped from the grip of justice.
Guess the hands of justice have gotten a little bit slimey.
Must be hard to hold on to those scales.
Can you hold them forever?
Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 30th June 2014 @ 3:47 pm
I cannot see anywhere in the crimes act 1961 where it allows for any limitation of perjury just because the family court is deemed to be a secret court.
After all perjury is a criminal matter and you should contact the police for criminal activity concerns. That’s why perjury located in the crimes act 1961. If the police took no action or did not investigate, then a complaint to the police complaints authority maybe an option. But don’t expect a red carpet reception. You will more than likely be blown off for no reason al all. Even more so if you have convictions.
Everyone knows parents lie under oath to god to protect or get custody of a child. That’s because the love of your own children is worth more than your soul.
From what I see and hear the family court is not interested in any justice for a father’s needs. Just what the court considers a safe outcome for the children. And perjury or no perjury won’t change this anytime soon.
It is going to take a generation more before the full results come back from mother only families. I think as time allows and providing there is no serious ongoing criminal history, shared custody of children from a broken marriage will be favoured as the best outcome for children in most situations.
Comment by Lukenz — Mon 30th June 2014 @ 5:09 pm
Powered by perjury – without abundant supplies of perjury, issues would be easily resolved outside caught$, thus legal worker’s incomes would drop to but a small fraction of what they can extort presently. This is why, although they talk about perjury being the biggest threat to law and order, they go to such lengths to prevent prosecutions for perjury.
Most recent perjury prosecutions have started out as private prosecutions. When it is obvious that the prosecution is likely to succeed, the police will usually take it over, to hide their reluctance to prosecute perjury.
Jeff Page claimed to have spent $300,000 to prosecute his ex-wife for perjury in familycaught$. It got through all of the early stages. On first appearance in District Caught, the lady judge asked if Jeff had permission from a familycaught$ judge to use the documents in District Caught? His legal worker, Jeff Harrison said “no, but if you will give a short recess, I will obtain it”.
No, case discharged for lack of evidence!
The Whakatane policeman prosecuted for perjury, the total legal costs were only about $2,000 and it succeeded. I guess this shows the efficiency of handling anything to do with familycaught$?
So, the moral is – don’t take familycaught$ seriously as a caught.
Take very seriously the damage that they can do, especially financially, as well as socially and relationship vandalism.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 30th June 2014 @ 6:35 pm
FRom the UK more talk from Judges
Separated mothers must no longer get away with ‘Catherine Tate justice’ that prevents fathers from seeing their children, a senior judge said.
No mother should be able to ignore court orders, stop a father ever meeting his children, and then tell him ‘Am I bothered?’, Appeal Court judge Lord Justice McFarlane said.
He said that radical fathers’ groups were right to complain that men were often wrongly shut out of their children’s lives.
Mothers who fail to obey court rulings will in future be ‘brought up short’, the judge said.
The warning from Sir Andrew McFarlane, one of the country’s most experienced family judges, follows a series of reforms earlier this year designed to speed up cases which decide on how separated parents will share the care of their children.
It follows years of failure to enforce orders giving fathers contact with their children. In around 4,000 cases a year fathers go back to court repeatedly to try to get access to their children because mothers defy the courts.
Judges have rarely fined or imprisoned intransigent mothers because most believe that to punish the mother would harm the children.
At one point the last Labour government considered, and then dropped, the idea of making disobedient mothers wear electronic tags.
Sir Andrew said in a speech that he hoped the reforms introduced this spring will compel more mothers to stick to the rules.
‘Where, post separation, a child lives with one parent, it is hard to underestimate the expectation that the system will now place upon that parent to respect and to meet the need for the child to have a good, sound, ordinary relationship with the other parent,’ he said.
‘These changes should, and in my view must, mark the end to what I might call the Catherine Tate approach to post-separation parenting, where the parent who holds all the trump cards, because the child is currently living with them, simply shrugs her shoulders and says to the other parent, who merely wants to see his child, “Am I bothered?”’
Sir Andrew said that groups like the radical Fathers 4 Justice ¿ which organised disruptive demonstrations at landmarks and in parliament in the 2000s ¿ had a case. A campaigner is pictured dressed as Batman on a balcony at Buckingham Palace in 2004
‘The system, the law, now requires them to be bothered. They have a responsibility to be bothered and if they persist in abdicating from that responsibility they can expect all those they encounter in and around the court system to bring them up short.’
Sir Andrew said that groups like the radical Fathers 4 Justice – which organised disruptive demonstrations at landmarks and in parliament in the 2000s – had a case.
‘Whilst deprecating some of their tactics, I had, in the course of a number of meetings, sat down in calm circumstances and listened to the stories of a number of fathers who considered that they had been profoundly let down by the system.
‘Whilst it might be that there are genuine, child focused, reasons why individual members of the various fathers’ groups have been denied contact, that could not be said of most of the individuals I have met in that context over the years. There is, in my view, a core validity to the essential complaints that these fathers make.’
Comment by Allan Harvey — Mon 30th June 2014 @ 7:38 pm
Let’s hope he is not de-frocked and de-knighted tomorrow.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 30th June 2014 @ 7:45 pm
I know a man who recently went to the police asking them to prosecute his ex with clear evidence that she lied in Family Court. Needless to say, the police refused to pursue his complaint. I am not aware if he is taking it further.
Having said that, the man did himself no favours in being loose with the truth in his communications with police, which they found out about. Nevertheless, I don’t think that’s an excuse for failling to prosecute his ex. Police could have prosecuted them both. Her perjury in Court was much more serious than his transgression(s) in communicating with police, and her perjury was clear and well evidenced while it remained uncertain whether he actually committed any offence.
Comment by Man X Norton — Mon 30th June 2014 @ 8:27 pm
@Allan Harvey I am guessing the Catherine Tate referred to is actress/comedienne Catherine Tate, who has a daughter to her ex toy boy and can’t be ‘bovvered’ with him anymore?
She apparently scripts her real life into her comedy shows.
I can’t find anything specific but (once again I am assuming) she made a joke of it on her TV show and it didn’t go down too well.
Or is there another Catherine Tate and this is just coincidence?
Comment by Downunder — Tue 1st July 2014 @ 8:54 am
Yes I understand she is UK comedian. I didn’t know she took the feminist line on parenting but that does seem consistent with the Judges comments.
Allan
Comment by Allan Harvey — Tue 1st July 2014 @ 11:13 am