It is revealed in an audio recording that Gail Hadfield Grainger has encouraged and coached a rape victim to use (abuse) Claire’s Law to find information about her alleged rapist.
The vulnerable victim had reported to the police that she had been raped. Greater Manchester Police (GMP) has failed to bring any charge against the alleged rapist.
The victim paid Hadfield Grainger & McNally to pursue a complaint and possible civil claim against GMP but, being a self-confessed unregulated firm, Gail Hadfield Grainger felt it acceptable to encourage and coach a victim in making a Claire’s Law application to uncover (otherwise confidential information) about the alleged rapist.
This meant the victim had to tell the police (under the advice of the lawyer) that she intended to ‘date’ the rapist who had raped her! The stupidity of the advice from Gail Hadfield Grainger is astounding. The rape victim has been led to completely discredit herself as Hadfield Grainger tells her to pretend she was drunk and wants to date her rapist again as a means to get information about the attacker.
Claires Law is the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme and came about after Clare Wood, a 36-year-old woman from Yorkshire, was murdered by her ex-boyfriend George Appleton in 2009.
The scheme was intended to give victims of domestic violence the right to information about their partners or potential partners.
The purpose of Claire’s Law is
A disclosure can be made lawfully by the police under the scheme if the disclosure is based on the police’s common law powers to disclose information where it is necessary to prevent crime, and if the disclosure also complies with established case law, as well as data protection and human rights legislation. It must be reasonable and proportionate for the police to make the disclosure, based on a credible risk of violence or harm.
Although rape is a serious crime, Claire’s Law is not intended for alleged victims of rape to investigate their own alleged attackers. While many most people would believe this is reasonable use of Claire’s Law, it is not what Claire’s law was intended to be used for, any such advice by unregulated rogue legal advisors could harm the intended use of the law and put other people at risk of abusing the law under the guidance of a ‘lawyer’.
It is understood that the wannabe ‘lawyers’ (Gail and Mags) failed to attend the meeting as promised, and the victim was left alone.
** LISTEN TO THE AUDIO RECORDING BELOW **
Beware of unlicensed, unregulated and inexperienced legal advisors who can get you in trouble.
Cricky what a misogynist, good job your batting the other way
What/who are you referring to?
She is using the Clare’s law thing as an excuse to get her to falsely confess. Any information relating to that could be obtained legally without falsely confessing to making false rape allegations. She also advised I plead guilty when I was looking to take action against the police. Eventually she told me I was charged with something I had told her was NFA and sent the information for.
So to summarise I came to her for false arrest ( as well as other stuff) and got charged by her which she obviously has no authority to do. It’s so unbelievably stupid I couldn’t actually find any examples of it being done before by any law firm in the world.
I also got advice that went beyond gross negligence to the point it was just stupid and contradicts what she says and what she is supposed to be achieving. I was actually upset about making a claim against her because I thought she might genuinely just be negligent but I just don’t believe anyone can be that stupid. It must be gross negligence or why does she keep doing the same stuff after everyone has complained?
What does she get from persuading a rape victim to say they consented because they were drunk and made a false accusation other than you getting charged. Then they could say put you onto a firm where Maggie used to work and not even as a solicitor… Which coincidentally is what they did to me and then suggested I pay over £7000. On top of the initial few hundred paid which no longer seems so cheap. They say they don’t get commission but they say stuff that goes completely against you ever getting any action against the police. Before you know it rather than getting compensation you’re paying more money out than your disposable income because someone has fudged the figures on the legal aid application even with 3 copies of your payslips.
Consider this when she says she’s working for next to nothing, is she really?
All a woman does is need cry rape to get a conviction.
They should need proove it like in the old days.
Shouldn’t be annonymous.
Should be subject to ferocious cross examonation including about their personal morality.
Prisons are full of innocent men falsely accused.
That is so wrong. I agree that ‘crying rape’, as you put it does (and should) trigger an investigation, but it does not ‘get a conviction’. The sad fact is, rapes often go unconvicted due to evidential difficulties, and it is probable that many rapists walk free after claiming the victim consented. I do agree that there will be false reports of rape, and sadly may see innocents falsely convicted. Sadly, this is the predicament with such an offence, in fact, this is the case for most crimes where parties disagree on facts and often found guilty based on hearsay or circumstantial evidence.