Sounds good but the reality is - false accusers are usually only discovered when they admit lying and this ruling will allow police to persuade them never to retract and thus to shore up the wrongful convictions.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1224122...eal-court-warns.html

Nice to see a conviction,however we still have far too few.
What I've noticed is that the police must suspect at an early stage she is lying.If it becomes obvious after a case is in court it is highly unlikely they will refer this matter to the CPS.But it is at this stage when the most obvious lies will be found out.
A fine balance of course between protecting the innocent,but the law is so one sided as to favor the reporter,than protect the accused.
Years ago the police would cross question the accuser thoroughly,so as to ascertain if she was telling the truth,now a simple statement is enough.Herein lies the problem,to convict somebody of lying after it has gone to court is to admit they did their job badly in bringing the prosecution.

Amen

I have reached the conclusion that no case where it is merely one person's word against the other's should be brought to court. Clearly, this would be terribly sad for the many genuine victims out there, who would be denied justice, however it seems that crimes of a sexual nature are the only ones where you can be convicted without any actual evidence.

We can't carry on with this system of allowing juries to decide guilt based on their instincts concerning the plausibility of the defendant and accuser. I realise I must seem very old fashioned with my belief in the old "innocent until proven guilty" thing. Whatever happened to that by the way?