When a System Removes Consequences, It Removes Justice — A Hard Look at False Allegations in Domestic Abuse Cases
- Falsely Accused Network
- Jan 2
- 4 min read
Written by Michael Thompson, Founder of the Falsely Accused Network
Imagine a society where robbing a bank is still illegal, but everyone knows there will be no criminal consequences.
No arrest.
No prosecution.
No jail.
Nothing.
Now ask yourself a simple question:
Would that encourage more people to rob banks?
Most readers instinctively say yes, because human behaviour responds to incentives. If the risk is zero, temptation rises.
This isn’t controversial economic theory — it’s basic common sense.
Yet when we shift the example to false allegations of domestic abuse, the conversation suddenly becomes uncomfortable. Because in England and Wales, we are living in a system where:
Making domestic abuse allegations is taken extremely seriously (as it should be).
But proving an allegation was deliberately false is exceedingly rare, and the chances of a prosecution for making a malicious allegation are even rarer.
In the Family Court, consequences for false allegations are virtually unheard of.
So we end up with a legal and cultural paradox:
Something that is technically illegal (perverting the course of justice, wasting police time, making malicious allegations) carries almost no practical risk of punishment in the family-law context.
And when a system removes consequences, it inevitably creates distortion.
---
The Confetti Problem: Allegations Thrown Without Accountability
On the Falsely Accused Network helpline, one pattern repeats over and over:
Men describe allegations being fired at them rapidly, repeatedly, and tactically — often:
Immediately after separation
When child contact is being negotiated
When financial disputes arise
After a new partner appears
Or right before a court hearing
Of course, some allegations of domestic abuse are true, and victims deserve full protection.
But the system’s refusal to deal robustly with demonstrably false allegations creates a loophole that is exploited.
Why?
Because the person making a false allegation understands that:
Even if the allegation collapses…
Even if evidence disproves it…
Even if the judge finds it unreliable…
They will almost certainly face no consequences.
Family courts do not prosecute.
Family courts rarely order costs.
Family courts almost never refer cases for criminal action.
So the message — intended or not — is clear:
“You can say whatever you want, and even if it’s untrue, nothing bad will happen to you.”
This is the bank-robbery scenario again.
If there is no meaningful deterrent, some people will abuse the system.
---
The Human Cost: Innocent Fathers Treated as Dangerous Men
This isn’t an abstract policy issue. The consequences are profound:
Innocent fathers lose contact with their children for months or years.
Police investigations hang over men who have done nothing wrong.
Careers are damaged.
Reputations are destroyed.
Family relationships crumble.
Mental health deteriorates under the weight of suspicion.
Even when cleared, the stigma sticks.
And the saddest part?
Many of these outcomes are not the result of proven abuse — but of untested allegations that carry weight simply because they exist.
The Family Court operates on a “better safe than sorry” mindset, which is understandable. But when false allegations are not penalised, that caution becomes a weapon.
---
Why the System Makes No Sense
The justice system holds two contradictory positions simultaneously:
1. Domestic abuse is extremely serious, and false allegations undermine real victims.
2. False allegations should almost never be punished, even when proven to be malicious.
Both cannot be true.
If domestic abuse is a grave matter — and it is — then making false allegations should also be treated gravely, because:
It diverts police resources.
It clogs court lists.
It damages the credibility of genuine victims.
It destroys innocent lives.
It corrupts outcomes relating to children.
It rewards dishonesty within legal proceedings.
A system that punishes one side but not the other is not a system based on justice — it is a system based on fear of appearing politically incorrect.
---
What Needs to Change
Here are realistic, balanced, and fair reforms:
1. Automatic referrals when an allegation is proven false
If a court finds an allegation to be fabricated, malicious, or knowingly untrue, it should be mandatory to refer it to police or CPS for review.
2. Costs orders used far more regularly
If a parent lies to the court and causes hearings to escalate, the innocent party should not be left thousands of pounds out of pocket.
3. Judges must record findings clearly
Too many judgments avoid explicitly stating an allegation was false. Clarity protects both sides — and prevents ongoing manipulation.
4. Stronger guidance from the Ministry of Justice
There should be national consistency on how false allegations are addressed, not a postcode lottery of judicial attitudes.
5. Support for genuine victims preserved
Tackling false allegations does not mean reducing support for real survivors. It means strengthening the integrity of the entire system.
6. Legal consequences should apply in family law just as they do in criminal law
If lying to the police can lead to prosecution, lying to the Family Court should not be treated as consequence-free.
---
If Removing Consequences Encourages Harm… Why Does Our System Allow It?
We already know the principle:
If bank robbery had no consequences, robberies would increase.
If fraud had no consequences, fraud would increase.
If perjury had no consequences, courts would collapse.
So why should false allegations be any different?
Human behaviour responds to incentives.
Right now, the incentive structure rewards allegation-making — not truth-telling.
Until that changes, nothing else will.
Falsely Accused Network at any time.
Website: www.falselyaccusednetwork.co.uk
Telephone: 0204 538 8788
Linktree: https://linktr.ee/FalselyAccusedNet
Comments