I think we all need to be careful here. As far as the "accused" is concerned it was a false, malicious or mistaken claim. As far as the "victim" is concerned it was none of those things. By saying the police weed out the false claims then it is close to saying that the "accused" is guilty before they have had a fair trial.
There are two views, only one can be correct and it has to be the courts that decide that, not keyboard warriors on DS.
ETA. Having said all of that, I do agree that calling someone mentally disturbed is not right either.
I'm sorry, I did not explain my point very well.Yes, it is totally up to a jury to decide as whether the accused is guilty or not. Presumed innocent until found guilty is quite fundamental.
What I meant by the police weeding out false or malicicious claims, is that some claims are, upon investigation, patently false. e.g the accused could have been out of the country for 6 months when the allegation is made. The accuser may indeed have a history of making all sorts of false accusations (very rare but it does happen). All this needs to be established and, hopefully, sufficient evidence, even if circumstantial, gathered to allow the CPS to let the case go before a jury.