just check out the last lines of this report...

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/nov/15/law

Only six months for falsely accusing someone of rape?

Her victim could have got life. If they made false accusers face the sentence their victim would have got, it might make them think twice.

The judge in the main case has totally missed the point.

Yes; all this "couldn't prove malice... would stop genuine victims coming forward..." is the judicial logic of Archbold that has gotten us into this mess.

Like miscarriages of justice victims having to pay for board and lodging.

You could not make it up. Alice in Wonderland.

This judge sounds a bit nuts ! Surely this man should appeal this verdict. I can't see how it would hold up.

The man was innocent and therefore wrongly accused.It's like saying if someone was wrongly jailed for a bank robbery and then released he isn't entitled to compensation if someone falsely accused him because it may prevent others reporting a bank robbery.

He must appeal..it's a weird decision and the judge is pre-empting all other future cases by implying that futures accused persons are guilty before a trial and that no-one in the future would ever make a false statement...totally weird !.