A woman who accused BT engineer of raping her claimed she sent text messages threatening to ‘ruin his life’ out of ‘anger’.
Other messages the women sent to 19-year-old Connor Fitzgerald read: ‘If I can’t have you, no-one can.’
The allegations meant the teenager spent three months on remand at HMP High Down in Banstead, Surrey.
Mr Fitzgerald, who lost his job as a BT engineer in south London, was only exonerated after the family handed prosecutors vital texts that helped to clear him.
Now, his accuser has admitted sending the texts to ‘ruin’ him.
‘I said I wanted to ‘ruin his life’ in anger because I couldn’t believe after being with me that he’d move on so quickly with someone else,’ she told the Sun Online.
False allegations should carry at least the punishment that he suffered, no?
And a legal question. If she’s charged – say with perversion of the course – then she loses that anonymity, doesn’t she? Or does she? My point being that men she might meet in the future have an interest in knowing that treating her in a less than gentlemanly manner might lead to three months in chokey. But we’re not going to get that anonymity as a basic rule dropped.
But, if charging with perversion causes the anonymity to fail already, then simply charging all false claims with perversion leads us to a useful end point – the abolition of anonymity for those who make such false claims. Well, to the extent that a claim of a false claim is true…..