Previous entry: Controversy still surrounds repressed memory therapy
Next entry: Muslims warned to stay indoors
Related
Advertisements *
Advertise Here *
Elsewhere
Subscribe: RSS
 |
RNB's RSS feed What is this? |
Subscribe: Email
 |
 Subscribe by Email What is this? |
Most Popular
- Attorney stymied by anti-polygamy activist’s TV demand
- Man killed at Hollywood Scientology center had made prior threats, police say
- Hate incidents in U.S. surge
- Five leaders of Muslim charity convicted in terrorism financing trial
- Swordsman Had Threatened Scientology Before
- Netherlands will extend burqa ban to universities
- California county OKs limits on picketing in response to anti-Scientology protests
- Mercy Ministries exorcism books leaked
- AUM Shinrikyo bankruptcy procedures to end, victims get 40% of compensation
- RNB Roundup: Atheism ads get tax support; Holland bans Magic Mushrooms; Fritzl turns to Buddhism; More…
Women sue state over false abuse case
More articles on this topic: False Memory SyndromeA Sydney woman and her mother have successfully sued the state for prosecuting and jailing them over false molestation claims brought by their children.
The women, who can only be known as LW and JS, were arrested in 1994 after LW’s three daughters and teenage son told police their parents and grandmother had sexually abused them.
Their father, AW, also was arrested and charged.
The allegations surfaced in 1993 when one daughter, 18-year-old SW, sought counselling over sexual difficulties with her boyfriend.
Over five months of counselling, the teen claimed she had repressed memories of her father, mother and 72-year-old grandmother molesting her from the age of five.
She took the allegations to police in April 1994. Her parents were arrested and her sisters, 11 and 13, and 15-year-old brother were taken into the care of DOCS.
The children initially denied being abused, but later claimed they were fed stupefying drugs and forced to have sex with a number of adults in “funny clothing” at a place called “the big house”.
Pets were allegedly routinely killed to threaten the children, and they claimed there had been an “infant sacrifice” on one occasion.
The two oldest girls also claimed they had fallen pregnant as a result of the abuse, and were forced to either miscarry or have an abortion.
In 1995, a magistrate concluded the allegations - which were almost entirely retracted during Children’s Court proceedings - were “essentially and substantially untrue”.
The charges against LW and JS were dropped in 1996, with those against AW also dropped or later abandoned by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The trio sued the state of NSW in the Supreme Court for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment.
They claimed the matter was inadequately investigated by police, and some evidence was omitted or selectively conveyed by the head of the investigation so that he could foster and continue an illicit relationship with one of the children.
The senior police officer was involved in a sexual relationship with SW when the charges were laid and throughout subsequent proceedings.
He was discharged from the force in 1998 suffering depression and acute stress.
Justice Virginia Bell on Tuesday found in favour of the mother and the now-deceased grandmother, awarding them a total of $165,000 in damages.
She rejected AW’s claim.
Justice Bell said the prosecution of both women was unlawful and amounted to a “high-handed interference” in their rights.
However, she did not consider the police officer was motivated by malice.
“I have concluded that (the officer) lacked a degree of objectivity in the W investigation,” Justice Bell said in her judgment.
“I do not find that (his) motive in instituting the prosecution of charges against AW and LW … was the product of any motive other than a desire to see them brought to justice.”
Outside the court, the family’s solicitor Greg Walsh called for reforms to evidence legislation to prevent miscarriages of justice arising from repressed memory evidence.
The Australian Law Reform Commission, which is currently reviewing the uniform evidence acts, refused to comment on the case.
What You Can Do From Here
|
Read More Articles On These Topics
Share, Blog, or Email This Article
Subscribe
Read Another Article
Previous entry: Controversy still surrounds repressed memory therapy Next entry: Muslims warned to stay indoors
RNB Homepage with latest headlinesFind Related Information
Find Related Books
|
Share This Article
To share this page simply copy and paste one of these URL's:
