Payback for false allegations

Returning to Rock, we now have the High Court apparently rejecting the NSW Supreme Court's essential argument that malicious prosecution can't apply because these aren't criminal matters. The Court also, by inference, dismissed the NSW judges' concern that allowing malicious prosecution in such circumstances would "spawn satellite litigation" when accused men seek reprisal for the impact of the false allegations.

That's exactly what we have in mind. A string of successful malicious prosecution cases could throw a spanner in the works of the huge false allegations industry.

We're keen to encourage as much satellite litigation as possible to use our court to bring liars to account. Yes, these complex civil actions often require lawyers, and deep pockets. But know that MT in South Australia self-represented right through his battles so far. It can be done! (If you have a good case, we might be able to find legal support to make this easier.)

Where things stand at the moment, if Rock (the ex-husband) appealed to the High Court, it looks likely that the NSW Court of Appeal decision would be overturned. Of course, that is not to say that the Rock would ultimately succeed in his case. Each case still needs to establish the requirements of malicious prosecution.

The most important point about malicious prosecution is that none of this would be necessary if our police and judges did their jobs. The women targeted in malicious prosecution cases are liars, people found to have perjured themselves in court.

"Perjurers are quite simply criminals. They should be dealt with as such by the courts," says a recently retired barrister with 40-years-experience in courts across Australia. He spells out the fact that, under both state and federal laws, perjury is regarded as a very serious criminal offence, yet most judicial officers are point blank refusing to take action over blatant perjury.

In a paper prepared for a continuing education course, the barrister outlines the consequences of this judicial failure. He tells the story of a woman seeking a DV order who alleged her estranged partner had "tailgated me through town in his huge quarry truck" terrifying the five kids she had in the car. Records from the man's vehicle logbook and the mine where he worked conclusively proved he was 100 miles away at the time. Similarly, allegations that the child was suffering three anxiety attacks a day through being traumatised by the appearance of his father at a school sports day were disproved by school records and medical evidence.

Despite all of these fabrications being proven as lies, the woman walked out of court completely unpunished – even though she had previously been heavily criticized by another magistrate for raising other baseless allegations. The costs order for the husband was refused with a bad-tempered snarl from the bench.

For this barrister this was just one of more than 60 cases involving DV applications based on lies. "There simply must be serious consequences and sanctions for telling lies on oath," he says, arguing judges should be compelled to make this happen.

But that would take legislative action, which is hard to see happening with most of our current governments firmly locked into a believe women narrative. It's quite a challenge to demand action over a problem which the powers that be determine doesn't exist. How can we compel judges to take action over false allegations when all our key institutions, including our craven media, pretend it never happens?

A few months ago, a story hit the news of a rare case of false evidence to the family court resulting in 18 months imprisonment for the perjurer. You guessed it. The villain was a man - a Melbourne bloke who gave false evidence in the Family Court about his $4 million in assets.

"I hope this case sends a message to anyone who thinks dishonestly might get them a more favourable ruling from the courts," said a police officer to The Guardian. The article failed to include a single word about false allegations from women.

Midst all this doom and gloom, the news from the High Court is a rare glimmer of hope. One small step for mankind. And we should celebrate this small success.