Two people can have different interpretations of events without one of them making maliciously false allegations. The complainant can have an honest, sincere, belief that they did not give consent.
And, for phone evidence, there are good reasons why a complainant may say one thing to police but something else to friends of the accused.
> That's not necessarily true though is it? [..] Two people can have different interpretations of events without one of them making maliciously false allegations.
You don't even have to go that far - the allegation could be true, but newly uncovered evidence could cast sufficient doubt that the accused is not found guilty. E.g. an eyewitness correctly identifies an assailant, but it is later revealed she wasn't wearing her prescription glasses.
Indeed there are three states. Guilty, innocent and not sure. A lot rides on it. A heinous crime must be punished (and most likely future ones prevented) but we absolutely can't send innocent people to prison - and they shouldn't spend years under a cloud of suspicion. The police, CPS and the courts have a really difficult job.
Two people can have different interpretations of events without one of them making maliciously false allegations. The complainant can have an honest, sincere, belief that they did not give consent.
And, for phone evidence, there are good reasons why a complainant may say one thing to police but something else to friends of the accused.