GP Spends Life Savings in Costs Defending Himself from False Accusations

As is now widely known, it is all too possible for an accused individual to successfully defend themselves against abuse accusations but still lose their entire life savings in the process.  Changes to the rules have meant that anyone earning more than £2,657 per month (£31,884 per annum) is excluded from receiving significant legal aid (Source: Ministry of Justice – Legal Aid Eligibility).  The result, in Dr Stephen Glascoe’s case, was that he has had to spend more than £100,000 on lawyers and expert witnesses.  The Legal Aid Board has determined he will receive only £7,280 as a contribution to his expenses, even though his accuser – since called a ‘serial fantasist’ – has won £22,000 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, based on unproven allegations made against himself and others.

The woman falsely claimed the retired GP had been part of a paedophile ring and made accusations to the police of having been abused at parties between the ages of 3 and 15.  She also claimed to have had a pregnancy forcibly aborted and to have tortured other children.

It is reported she has since applied for more compensation to be added to what she has already secured.

Yet again, regression therapy has played a significant role in a false accusation case.


Christopher Clee, QC, applied at Cardiff crown court yesterday for Dr Glascoe to have all his costs reimbursed on the ground that the charges were the result of an “improper act or omission” by the prosecution. The prosecution should have been alerted, he said, to the poor credibility of the alleged victim by notes from 229 counselling sessions, which included “regression work”, and her improperly close relationship with the investigating detective.

Mr Clee said the notes made clear that the therapist “had exceeded any professional boundaries” and given the woman the idea that she had been raped by five men. Prosecutors had demanded to see the therapy notes before deciding whether to charge, but a senior police officer urged them to take a “victim-centric position”, he said.

Catherine Richards, for the prosecution, said the case was dropped over “considerable concern” about the detective, and because a jury might consider that there had been a “mirror of the undue influence” by the alleged victim on the officer and her therapist.

Judge Thomas Crowther attributed the collapse of the case to “dynamite” evidence that the complainant had lied about an Amazon package she claimed had been ordered by her abusers.


After making an application to court to have his costs paid, the presiding judge rejected his suit, saying he would have had to prove no reasonable prosecutor would have decided to bring charges.  The determination had been made, he concluded, ‘in line with enlightened modern practise.’

To read more please visit The Times’ website (subscription required):

The Justice for Men and Boys’ website also has a link to the article: