The Hard Lessons of Jemma Beale

In August 2017, Jemma Beale (27) was convicted and given a ten year prison sentence (of which she will serve half in jail and the remainder on licence), following a trial during which jurors heard that she was a ‘serial liar’, who had falsely accused nine men of raping her on separate occasions, while a further six had supposedly sexually assaulted her. All these bogus allegations were confined to a three-year period, while she was an adult.

Jemma Beale

As a direct result of her lies, an innocent man was convicted of rape and jailed for seven years. Before his conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal, he had already served over two years in prison, being treated, unsurprisingly, as the lowest of the low: he was a convicted rapist and sex offender. Since his release, he has described graphically for the media how his life has been utterly ruined.

Beale had been supported throughout that case as a victim of sexual violence, whose account must be believed. No doubt there were professionals on hand to give her support, in addition to a police victim liaison officer. In due course she applied for – and received – compensation amounting to £11,000 via the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA). Meanwhile, an innocent man, whom she had falsely accused, was rotting in a stinking prison cell, his reputation and happiness destroyed, his life as he'd known it effectively over.

And no doubt that would have been the end of the matter had Beale not felt emboldened by her ‘success’. After all, the police had got the result they wanted – the conviction of a dangerous sex offender – and she had pocketed a sum of tax-free money, courtesy of the taxpayer, to spend on whatever she fancied. It’s worth remembering that for some people a lump sum of that size can seem genuinely life changing, especially if they aren’t in regular employment or are living on state benefits.

English prison cell

Jemma Beale, however, was greedy. She was not only hungry for more compensation payments, but she also had a deeply sadistic streak in her nature that led her to revel in the suffering of men she chose as her victims. Psychiatrists and psychologists will no doubt debate whether or not her claims of childhood abuse contributed to her perverted, warped nature, as well as her supposed ‘vulnerability’ as an adult. Whatever the root cause, she set out deliberately to make a series of utterly baseless accusations against other men. Some, she asserted, had raped her. Others subjected her to vile sexual assaults. In every case, her allegations were nothing more than calculated lies.

It was the astonishing volume of these complaints that proved to be Beale’s ultimate undoing. Even police officers who specialise in sexual offences, and who had been indoctrinated during the era of the ‘you will be believed’ policy, imposed from above by former Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Sir Keir Starmer and propagated assiduously by his hapless successor Alison Saunders, realised that they had a serial liar and attention-seeker on their hands. Systematically, the whole investigation, which now involved fourteen targets, unravelled and the first innocent victim who'd been jailed saw his rape conviction quashed and he was released from prison (although never from the horrors which he has had to endure). Even so, he must be accounted among the luckiest of the plethora of innocent people rotting in jail, simply because victims of wrongful convictions, especially in cases of sexual offences' prosecutions, are so rarely able to get their appeals as far as the Court of Appeal, let alone being able to clear their names.

Moreover, in the vast majority of such cases, the overarching policy among police and CPS prosecutors is to let sleeping dogs lie. Prosecuting the makers of malicious false sexual allegations is not considered to be ‘in the public interest’. Some excuse almost always seems be found to avoid taking any action, often with an assertion that the liar, fantasist, revenge seeker, fraudster or perjurer suffers from ‘poor mental health’. It is not surprising to me that the police are nearly always reluctant to prosecute liars who have duped them into believing they have been abuse victims because it is these very liars to whom the police have proffered undiluted support and encouragement throughout the so-called investigation process. I know from first hand experience.

In the specific case of Jemma Beale, however, the CPS did make a decision to charge her and she stood trial and was duly convicted by a jury, despite her stubborn refusal to accept that she had done anything wrong. There was no acceptance of responsibility, nor evidence of any compassion or concern for her many victims.

Importantly, jurors heard and read evidence extracted from her electronic communications, which included text messages, one of which graphically revealed how she was ‘glorying’ in the suffering of an innocent man she had falsely accused of rape. This fact alone makes it clear why police and prosecutors MUST have access to complainants’ communication devices and online accounts. Without the vital evidence of those damning messages, a serial fraudster like Jemma Beale could well have pulled the wool over jurors’ eyes and walked out of court free to wreak havoc on further victims.

Court of Appeal

As was her legal right, Beale appealed her conviction and sentence, asserting that ten years was ‘unduly harsh’. That appeal was heard this week and the judges of the Court of Appeal rightly rejected her applications. She was properly convicted and her sentence was confirmed. She will remain where she belongs: behind bars for several more years to come and, after her release, will remain under supervision by probation officers until August 2027.

Nevertheless, there has been a concerted effort by Beale’s family and others, including journalists, to paint her in a very different light. Articles have been written decrying her conviction and sentencing. She has been portrayed as a vulnerable ‘victim’ and many column inches have been filled denouncing her prison sentence as ‘cruel and unnecessary’. What is noticeably lacking in these protests is any genuine concern for the men whose lives, careers, mental health and relationships Beale has deliberately wrecked.

It gets worse. I recently stumbled across a very professionally produced website, endorsed by members of her family, that continues to proclaim her innocence. This, I suppose, is understandable. Relatives often find it difficult to accept that a loved one could have committed vile crimes. What I found particularly grotesque, however, is that this website names and smears Beale’s innocent victims, thus adding to the damage she has already inflicted upon them. If the family of a convicted rapist dared to set up a similar website, naming the victims, I don’t doubt for one second that they would be the focus of police attention and would face arrest and possible prosecution. Yet this pro-Beale website continues to peddle her vile lies, despite her conviction and the recent dismissal of her appeal. Will these smears stay online now? Only time will tell.

Jemma Beale on her phone

Although Jemma Beale’s case has been reported widely in the media, there has so far been no informed analysis of the lessons that need to be urgently learned. I would suggest that the first issue is just how dangerous the ‘you WILL be believed’ dogma actually is. Simply accepting as truth any sexual accusation made by any complainant who walks in the door of a police station defies logic to the point of being ludicrous. It certainly flies in the face of established investigative practice of investigating 'without fear or favour' and clearly produces wrongful prosecutions and miscarriages of justice.

Beale’s claims should have been thoroughly and impartially investigated from the start. Had this been done, it seems unlikely that her first victim would have lost over two years of his life rotting in a prison cell. These cases have real, human victims. He was failed utterly by the police and the CPS.

The second lesson is the vital importance of police having access to both the complainant's and the defendant's communication devices and online accounts, especially when there is little or no other evidence that an offence has actually taken place. Without such investigation, vital evidence – such as Jemma Beale’s messages expressing her sadistic joy in her vile crimes – would have been lost. Recent calls to block or restrict police investigations on the grounds that it might ‘discourage’ genuine victims of sexual assault are disingenuous. The only people who are likely to want to keep their communications hidden from police view are liars, fraudsters, fantasists and those bent on revenge.

Mobile phones

The third lesson that needs to be emphasised is that when police and prosecutors fail to conduct proper impartial investigations into sexual offences, it empowers fraudsters, liars and fantasists, like Jemma Beale, effectively encouraging them to try it on again and again. During my research into false allegations, I have found such cases, including that of one woman who falsely accused no fewer than seven men – all work colleagues – of rape or sexual assault, while she was working for different firms. In most cases, because the allegations were always set in an office context, each firm’s insurer opted to settle her claims quietly, out of court, without realising that she had done it all before. Her anonymity proved very convenient, as well as profitable. She made hundreds of thousands of pounds over the years.

In my own case, the two greedy liars who made false allegations against me had previously been awarded compensation for their claims against another teacher at the same school. Emboldened by their ‘success’ the first time round, they decided to return to the institutional insurer’s 'honey-pot' a second time. They failed when a unanimous jury saw through their tissue of lies in a matter of minutes. However, I am of the firm opinion that, had those lies been believed and I had been convicted, the malicious duo would have pocketed thousands more pounds in undeserved compensation and would then have started plotting to accuse falsely yet another innocent victim.

The fourth lesson is that we need some form of mechanism designed to claw back compensation payments that have been made to individuals – like Jemma Beale – who have been exposed and convicted of perverting the course of justice, perjury or fraud, whether against the CICA or institutional insurers. It is simply outrageous that she has pocketed £11,000 of taxpayers’ money without facing the prospect of having to pay back her ill-gotten gains that were obtained by fraud. Other types of criminals, including insurance fraudsters, robbers, drug dealers and embezzlers are regularly slapped with Proceeds of Crime Orders (POCAs), which strip them of their assets and recover monies and property that have been accumulated through criminal activities. Why not the likes of Beale?

The fifth lesson is, whenever a conviction has been quashed in circumstances which make it clear an accuser or prosecution witness has lied on oath, or that trials have collapsed for similar reasons, the CPS should always consider prosecuting, whether the false accuser admits to an offence or not. Of course, there may well be cases where a prosecution genuinely wouldn’t be appropriate, but, as Beale’s case demonstrates, liars, fantasists and fraudsters can and do inflict appalling damage on their immediate victims and their families, as well as on society as a whole. A failure to acknowledge this undermines our justice system and brings the police and CPS into disrepute. I am still beset with daily outrage that the two scheming liars who dragged me into Ipswich Crown Court, in 2014, have walked away with both anonymity and impunity. How can this be fair and just?

I would also suggest that, where a false accuser has been convicted of making sexual allegations against innocent victims, the courts should impose lifelong orders, giving these wronged individuals retrospective anonymity. Such an order could require the online media to remove or redact the innocent parties published names and give them the same rights as genuine victims of sexual offences. Of course, they would retain the right to waive their own anonymity, if they wished to do so. That would put a stop to websites – such as that being maintained by Jemma Beale’s family – continuing to name and smear her many victims online.

By any measure, Jemma Beale is an unrepentant criminal, as was noted by the judges at her unsuccessful appeal. She has caused immense harm to many innocent people and continues to refuse to take any responsibility for her vile crimes. In view of these facts, surely it would be appropriate for her (and others like her) to be included on a national register of serious offenders, who should be obliged to notify the police of their details and movements for the rest of their lives? Otherwise, there will be nothing to prevent her reinventing herself, once she has completed her prison sentence and licence period, and causing misery and havoc once again. That must not be allowed to happen.

The 3 Cs: Contamination, Collusion, Concoction

I was alerted to this topic during the two years (2013/14) I was under suspicion of having inappropriately touched a child in a school changing room back in the early 1980s. The allegation had absolutely no truth in it whatsoever but I was disturbed to learn that, during the so-called investigation, somebody, who had nothing whatsoever to do with the case, had appointed himself a sort of police helper and was actively touting for other complainants to come forward via postings on the internet.

In April 2014, he posted the following: 'Simon Warr's trial has been postponed until October 2014. The police have asked me to inform you all that they are still open for statements. You can DM me.' etc etc.

This seemed to be a clarion call for more former pupils to come forward. I decided to do some research into this sordid practice.

Allegations of institutional historical sexual and physical abuse have become an industry here in the UK, due to the prospect of generous compensation payments. Although the sums paid to alleged victims of sexual abuse are limited under the government’s 'Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority' (CICA), personal injury solicitors have realised that most institutions – particularly boarding schools and local authority children’s homes – have public liability insurance that offers far richer pickings for claimants. Individual claims can easily top £100,000 and many insurers prefer to settle these claims out of court, rather than incur the heavy costs of official legal proceedings and the risk of the associated negative publicity.

What I found particularly concerning is the role being played by private individuals in actively trawling online for, usually, historical allegations – true or fabricated – that can ultimately be used to claim compensation. In some cases the alleged target(s) may be deceased, but many others are still living and, in these cases, complaints can be passed onto the local police. In a few very troubling instances, the police themselves appear to be supporting these trawling operations by sharing intelligence with the private citizens who administer the web pages.

While bringing genuine sex offenders to justice is a laudable aim, there are serious problems when private, unaccountable individuals start to play a key role in identifying potential complainants, meeting them face to face privately, without witnesses or any official oversight, taking initial statements of ‘evidence’ and then coaching them prior to passing their details on to firms of personal injury solicitors and then to the local police force.

This practice raises three major concerns about the integrity of any evidence that may emerge via these ‘trawling’ operations – the 3 Cs:

• Contamination – where the individuals involved in trawling ‘implant’ (or even fabricate) memories of abuse, or make suggestions to often vulnerable or disturbed adults; or to those adults who are down on their financial luck.
• Collusion – by networking between complainants, either acting as 'a go-between' for information, or sharing unofficial statements made by other complainants from the same institution, thereby adding unmerited credibility to their allegations.
• Concoction – where completely fictitious, malicious allegations against innocent people are created and developed, before being presented to the police as spontaneous claims of sexual abuse.

Even when historical allegations of abuse may be grounded in fact, the processes of contamination and collusion – if proven – may well result in a complainant's evidence being treated as unreliable. In such cases, the intervention of online trawlers has the very real potential to do enormous harm to prosecutions. The end result may be that the guilty go free, due to the meddling of unqualified and irresponsible ‘enthusiasts’.

Moreover, there is also the inescapable fact that those who orchestrate such online trawling activities have no professional training or duty of care to anyone. Implanting or encouraging false memories can have devastating consequences, not only to an innocent target but also in cases where damaged or vulnerable people are effectively being manipulated to suit the trawler's own objectives. It isn’t unknown for this type of obsessive to publish personal details of those alleging sexual abuse, even against the wishes of the person who has disclosed highly sensitive information to him or her. In such cases, the clear goal of the online trawler is self-aggrandisement and the cultivation of a ‘saviour/hero’ figure. Any damage to those who have unwisely shared their real or fantasy experiences with such individuals is dismissed as collateral damage. In some cases, irreparable harm can be caused to families, including young children, due to irresponsible behaviour of this kind.

Of course, there are some who set themselves up as trawlers who may well have much darker motives. There are doubtless a number of individuals who find stories of sexual molestation – real or imaginary – stimulating and exciting. These voyeurs – for that is what they are in reality – enjoy listening to every salacious detail of what they are being told. Yet they would deny vehemently any such suggestion from puzzled observers, who might enquire why they are so fascinated by the sexual degradation and abuse of children. It would not be unfair to describe such obsessive characters as aural scopophiliacs… deriving their sexual pleasure from listening to other’s accounts of sexual abuse. Many of these perverts are very accomplished at hiding in plain sight.

Since private individuals – whether they be vigilantes or sexual abuse obsessives – who engage in these trawling operations are not bound by legal safeguards and rules which are designed to protect suspects from the contamination of evidence or collusion between accusers, any police investigation that has been launched as a result of information emerging from this type of trawling may well be compromised from the very beginning, especially if the role played by the trawler is actively concealed by detectives from the defence and the jury in criminal trials. There is a very real risk of miscarriages of justice and innocent people being wrongly convicted, due to the manipulation and even creation of bogus ‘evidence’, especially when prosecutors often rely on similar fact evidence to convince juries of a defendant’s guilt.

So we really do need to ask: how many wrongful convictions may have occurred as a direct result of this online trawling? All defence teams should be alert to possible contamination of evidence and active collusion between former pupils, as well as the concoction of completely false abuse claims by unscrupulous, malicious, mendacious adults, who are seeking substantial compensation payouts for historical institutional sexual abuse that may never have taken place outside of their own fetid, disturbed imaginations. Just like the two who accused me back in 2012.