這起案件發生於英國東北部，在當地司法體系與社會輿論中引發高度關注。涉案者為一名29歲的中國籍女留學生李浩（Hao Li，音譯），她因捏造性侵指控、嚴重誤導司法程序，最終於2026年1月16日在英格蘭的達勒姆刑事法院（Durham Crown Court）被判處6年有期徒刑，成為近年英國少見判刑如此嚴厲的誣告案件之一。

案件可追溯至2024年11月。當時李女正在紐卡索大學攻讀碩士學位，透過社交場合結識一名在職的英國男警員。案發當日，該名警員並未值勤，雙方在完全合意的情況下發生性行為。整個過程並不存在任何暴力、脅迫或違反意願的情形。然而，在性行為結束後，由該名警員開車將李女送回住處，僅約半小時後，李女便向警方報案，指控對方對她實施強姦。由於指控對象是一名警察，案件立即被視為高度敏感事件，該男警員隨即遭到逮捕並接受刑事調查。

案件的關鍵轉折點，來自一段極具決定性的錄音證據。該名男警員在事發前因個人原因啟動手機錄音功能，並在過程中未將其關閉，意外完整記錄雙方互動與性行為前後的談話內容。錄音顯示，李女在整個過程中不僅語氣自然，且多次主動引導與要求行為發生，完全不符合性侵受害者的行為模式。這份錄音直接推翻了強姦指控的核心基礎，也成為檢方與陪審團判斷案件真相的關鍵證據。

更不利於李女的是，事後她曾透過WhatsApp傳訊給該名警員，坦承自己捏造強姦指控，並請求對方幫助她「想辦法解決」，以避免法律責任。這些訊息紀錄與錄音證據相互印證，使她的說詞完全站不住腳，反而坐實了其蓄意誣告、試圖操縱司法程序的事實。

最終，法院裁定李女涉及三項「妨礙司法公正罪」（Perverting the course of justice）全部成立，判處她6年有期徒刑。法官同時簽發為期6年的禁制令，嚴禁她在任何情況下接觸、聯絡或接近該名男警員。由於她並非英國公民，法官亦在判詞中明確指出，李女在服刑過半、約3年後若獲假釋，極有可能隨即被移交移民部門，並被遣返回中國。

在宣判時，法官語氣嚴厲地指出，這起案件的嚴重性不僅在於對個人名譽的毀滅性傷害，更在於其對整個司法體系與社會信任的衝擊。法官特別強調，若非這段錄音證據的存在，該名男警員很可能會面臨多項強姦罪名的起訴，甚至可能因此身陷囹圄，職業生涯與人生被徹底摧毀。同時，這類虛假指控也會對真正的性侵受害者造成寒蟬效應，讓原本需要被保護的人，因擔心案件被質疑而不敢報案。

值得注意的是，在整個調查期間，該名男警員已為此付出極為沉重的代價。他被強制停職長達5個月，並在警局拘留室中被羈押35小時，相關消息曝光後，對其名譽、心理狀態及警職生涯均造成難以抹去的傷害。即便最終獲得清白，這段經歷仍被法官形容為「無法完全修復的創傷」。

此案在英國社會引發廣泛討論，被視為司法系統對「惡意誣告」零容忍立場的明確宣示，也再次凸顯誠實報案與保護司法公正的重要性。

This case took place in the northeast of the United Kingdom and attracted significant attention within the British legal system and public opinion. The defendant was a 29-year-old Chinese national and international student, Li Hao (Hao Li, transliteration), who was found to have fabricated a rape allegation and seriously misled the justice system. On January 16, 2026, she was sentenced to six years in prison by Durham Crown Court, making it one of the most severe sentences handed down in the UK in recent years for a false accusation case.

The case dates back to November 2024. At the time, Li was pursuing a master’s degree in Newcastle and met a serving British male police officer through social interaction. On the day of the incident, the officer was off duty, and the two engaged in sexual intercourse entirely by mutual consent. There was no violence, coercion, or lack of consent at any point. Afterward, the officer drove Li back to her residence. However, within about half an hour of arriving home, Li reported to the police that she had been raped by him. Because the accused was a police officer, the allegation was treated as a highly sensitive matter, and the officer was immediately arrested and subjected to a criminal investigation.

The decisive turning point in the case came from a highly unusual but critical piece of evidence: an audio recording. For personal reasons unrelated to the incident, the officer had activated a recording function on his mobile phone earlier and had not turned it off, inadvertently capturing the entire interaction, including conversations before and during the sexual encounter. The recording showed that Li spoke naturally throughout and repeatedly took the lead in initiating and directing the encounter, which was entirely inconsistent with the behavior of a sexual assault victim. This recording directly undermined the foundation of the rape allegation and became the most important evidence for the court in determining the facts of the case.

Li’s position was further weakened by subsequent WhatsApp messages she sent to the officer. In these messages, she admitted that the rape allegation was false and asked him to help her “find a way to deal with it” so she could avoid legal consequences. These messages, when combined with the audio recording, completely destroyed her credibility and instead confirmed that she had deliberately made a false accusation and attempted to manipulate the justice system.

The court ultimately found Li guilty on three counts of perverting the course of justice and sentenced her to six years’ imprisonment. The judge also imposed a six-year restraining order, strictly prohibiting her from contacting or approaching the officer in any form. As Li is not a British citizen, the judge noted in the sentencing remarks that she may be eligible for parole after serving half of her sentence, around three years, at which point she is highly likely to be deported to China.

In delivering the sentence, the judge emphasized the seriousness of the offense, noting that the harm extended far beyond damage to an individual’s reputation and struck at the heart of the justice system and public trust. The judge stressed that, had it not been for the existence of the recording, the officer could have faced multiple rape charges and potentially imprisonment, with his career and life completely destroyed. The court also highlighted that malicious false accusations risk creating a chilling effect, discouraging genuine victims of sexual assault from coming forward out of fear that their claims may be doubted.

During the investigation, the male officer had already paid a heavy price. He was suspended from duty for five months and detained in a police custody cell for 35 hours. The publicity surrounding the case caused serious harm to his reputation, mental well-being, and professional career. Even though he was ultimately cleared of all wrongdoing, the judge described the damage he suffered as “not something that can be fully undone.”

The case has sparked widespread discussion in British society and is seen as a clear statement by the courts of zero tolerance toward malicious false accusations. It also underscores the importance of truthful reporting and the protection of the integrity of the justice system.