When someone is found 'not guilty' in a criminal trial, what is the 'status' of accusers' evidence given during the course of the trial that is proved to be false, recognisably false?

If I were on trial for something serious, accused by (eg) a number of people of unspeakable acts and, one by one, their evidence is shown to be just bo ocks and I am thus acquitted, I'd want to know how to turn the tables, I think...

Maybe there's someone with legal quals that can help us understand what goes on... ...

Be true to yourself. That way happiness lies...

I have been tried by various kangaroo courts for crimes against caravanning, not guilty every time but my accusers always seem to get away with it scot free, and continue their nefarious ways. At work
At home

"I can't always believe facts I read on the web" - Charles Dickens

winner by default of the tractor vs caravan race

It's all in the terminology. You are found "Not Guilty", not "Innocent".

The (criminal) Court must be sure of your guilt "beyond reasonable doubt" (say 95% sure). In a civil Court it is only "on the balance of probabilities" (say 55% sure).

If found Not Guilty in a criminal Court, all they are saying is 'we're not sure (enough) that you did it'. They are NOT saying 'you didn't do it'.

People are found Not Guilty for all sorts of reasons, including procedural errors by the CPS and / or police - often not because they 'didn't do it'.

Just because the accused is found Not Guilty cannot automatically mean the accuser is Guilty. Consider rape cases - if an accused is found Not Guilty does that automatically make the accuser Guilty? Of course not.

There are of course certain recourse if people can be shown to have introduced malicious evidence in Court. Perjury and Perverting the Course of Justice are just two very serious offences that come to mind. In most cases though, it is notoriously hard to prove (beyond all reasonable doubt) that evidence is actually false, rather than mistaken or mis-remembered.

HTH.

Yes and just out of interest with regard to perverting the course of justice, the offence is a common law offence (Judge made law as opposed to statute) and the crown must show that the defendant intended to pervert the course of justice. Carrying out an act that goes on to pervert the course of justice does not complete the offence unless the defendant intended it to result in the perversion of the course of justice. LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

Then we also have "not proven" verdict. Everyone can spread it - Anyone can catch it. Stay home - the life you save can be your own!

I assume you mean in Scotland. Ironically, that is actually 'worse' for an accused than Not Guilty..

Proven / Guilty = you did it
Not Proven = you possibly did it but we're not saying you did
Not Guilty = you didn't do it.

Just guilty or not guilty in the courts of England & Wales as your basic outcomes. There can be not guilty by jury or not guilty on judges direction for example no case to answer.

There is also not guilty: Discontinued by the prosecution or not guilty: Dismissed no evidence offered. Just some examples there.

Sometimes a defendant will plead guilty to a lesser offence. For example: Pleads not guilty to GBH but guilty to ABH. CPS drop the charge of GBH and accept the guilty plea to ABH. LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

INteresting question.

As to turning the table on the accuser, it's not so easy . As already discussed, you would have to prove the accuser knowingly told fibs with the aim of falsifying evidence which could be hard to prove beyond all reasonable doubt.

Ignoring people that make up complete lies for a second, it's very common for people's recollections of versions of events to Stray from the truth as It actually happened. In times of crisis, I've noticed that people remember specific points, and then can interpolate what happens between those points to match the bits that they remember.

For example, girl in busy pub remebers sitting on chair having drink, but she is not wasted, next thing remebersis lying on the ground in a lot of pain, remembers being put in taxi to hospital. Turned out to have broken bones.

She interpolated that someone had bumped her off the chair, that the bouncers man handled her out the pub thinking she was drunk, and threw her in a taxi causing her further injury.. this was also the version as told by a second witness. It makes sense and joins the dots between the specific points she remembers.

Reality from cctv was she fell off chair of her own accord no person next to her, bouncers spent time with her and aided her out to the taxi. I.e no criminality.

Now the girl and her witness both believed that their recollection was correct and that they were telling the truth. If a case went to trial for anything the bouncers may have done (assault etc), the girls evidence althought given as genuine would be proved incorrect, but you wouldn't be able to immediately flip the tables on the girls. They would have given evidence in good faith.

Difficult area for the person who has been accused as although not found guilty, the Accusation alone can be just as bad on a persons reputation.

Short of an accuser being charged with perverting the course of justice or to a lesser extent wasting police time, we have the defamation laws.

Defamation cases can get very expensive and are usually seen when celebrities sue newspapers. Since the turn of the new year, the laws have been changed so that you now have to show serious harm has been done. Written words are libel and spoken words are slander.

The definition is (from memory - Winfield on Tort I believe): A defamation is the publication of a statement which reflects upon a persons reputation and tends to lower him in the estimation of a right thinking member of society generally or makes that person(s) shun or avoid him.

The key elements are that the words must be defamatory, they must be published/spoken by the defendant, they must refer to the claimant and they must be published to at least one other person besides the claimant.

"For mere general abuse spoken, no action lies." Sir James Mansfield in Thorley v Kerry if memory serves me well again.

There are various defences to defamation, for example honest comment (fair comment when I studied it), justification, or absolute privilege.

In the example by Fisha, at face value, honest comment would be home and dry there. Plus, even with a strong case you have to think about who you are suing. Newspapers have plenty of money but Joe Bloggs might not have. LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey