Andrew Davidson, prosecuting, said Darling had told a “pack of lies and falsehoods” to police - over a five year period up to March 2018 - about her ex-partner including that he raped her, stalked her, had tried to kill her, had a gun, and lied to his employer's HR that he had slept with the employer’s wife.
While Mr Davison was prosecuting there was a sudden commotion in the dock as Darling appeared to pass out, and court staff helped her while she lay flat on the floor.
Nice try, love.
During an afternoon hearing Miss Nixon said Darling was a diabetic and suffered from mental health issues, adding “it is quite clear her physical condition will make a custodial sentence difficult".
Tough. Those are called 'consequences'.
Judge Burbridge said what Darling did over a long period had been "extremely serious" and wasted police resources in Bedfordshire and Kidderminster investigating the false complaints.
He jailed Darling for 20 months, and granted a restraining order for her partner.
Nice to see a judge get tough for once, though it's a pitiful sentence compared to what the man would have got, and it's a shame to see 'wasting police resources' as the key issue...
But still, baby steps!
I am firmly of the opinion that if a woman complains of rape but it transpires that she lied, then she should be as harshly treated as the man would have been had he been convicted. In the case where a man has been convicted, and served a prison sentence, then what? Should he be allowed to actually rape her? Or should she have the same sentence but doubled? Or pay him the loss of income while he was inside? How can a punishment fit the crime?
ReplyDelete"I am firmly of the opinion that if a woman complains of rape but it transpires that she lied, then she should be as harshly treated as the man would have been had he been convicted."
ReplyDeleteTo borrow a discredited phrase...me too!