GD is going to love this one - Rape case collapse

Associate
Joined
29 May 2003
Posts
2,038
Location
Cambridge
As someone who finds himself newly-single after over 25 years with my former partner and hence back in the dating game before much longer, the implications of this case absolutely terrify me.

Seems to me this poor sod will now be indelibly marked with this for the rest of his life - there will always be someone gossiping about him, either ignoring or refusing to accept that the case against him collapsed. I hope he sues the Police/CPS for as much as he can - his name has been tarnished and they are guilty of, at worst, deliberately attempting to pervert the course of justice or at best, incompetence, both of which deserve punishment.

Meanwhile the girl/woman in question gets off scot-free - you would hope that any further cries of “RAPE!” on her part would be treated with a degree of scepticism. She is clearly a rather unstable individual with some rather warped ideas; has there ever been a previous case where having accused someone of rape, the ‘victim’ has then contacted her alleged rapist and requested further liaisons? Who knows, possibly even liaisons of a BDSM nature, given her alleged rape fantasies?

For the avoidance of doubt, in no way am I condoning rape - it’s a heinous crime and anyone who commits it deserves all they get. However, it seems the alleged rapist is assumed guilty right from the start and has his name plastered all over the papers, assuring that mud will stick to him regardless of the verdict. There should either be anonymity for both parties or neither ...
 
Man of Honour
Joined
29 Mar 2003
Posts
56,791
Location
Stoke on Trent
According to article, Jerry Hayes, the prosecution barrister said the CPS hadn't seen the disc and the officer said it was clearly not disclosable because it dealt with very personal matters.

I deal with disclosure and if you come across something very personal you write to the person (via their Solicitor) and ask if it's OK to disclose it.
If they say no you redact it.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
29 Mar 2003
Posts
56,791
Location
Stoke on Trent
Eh? That makes no sense in this context.

Why?
The poster said they didn't disclose it because there was some personal stuff on there.
You get rid of that stuff.

In case you missed it I was replying to this poster -

According to article, Jerry Hayes, the prosecution barrister said the CPS hadn't seen the disc and the officer said it was clearly not disclosable because it dealt with very personal matters.
 
Associate
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Posts
1,240
Why?
The poster said they didn't disclose it because there was some personal stuff on there.
You get rid of that stuff.

In case you missed it I was replying to this poster -

Thanks for the information. I guess what dowie means is what happens if the personal matter is relevant to the case?
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
14,359
Location
5 degrees starboard
I expect being accused of rape, being on police bail, unable to move, go on holiday, having to disclose said fact to friends and relatives, employers, colleges was quite personal too.

I do hope he gets some recompense, even if only from the public purse. It will not make up for two years in your early twenties though.
 
Associate
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Posts
1,240
Indeed, sounds like the data should always be turned over to the defence after any irrelevant personal details are redacted. In this case nothing was handed to either the CPS or the defence. It seems the officer was trying to say he couldn't hand it over because nothing was redacted and there were personal matters that ought not to be disclosed, but that there was no need to because there was nothing that would help or hinder either case anyway. Just good old fashioned laziness perhaps?

I would hope that even when there is deemed to be no information relevant to a case that personal matters are checked for relevance, redacted and the rest released as a matter of course and not left for the police or CPS to decide what ought to be disclosed.

...

Of course, that begs the same question of trust in not marking evidence as 'personal matter' not to be disclosed. Surely the defence has to be involved and it be up to the judge to decide what is allowed to be publicly disclosed during a trial.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,899
I explained, you write to the person through their Solicitor and ask if they are willing to disclose their personal stuff.

But that doesn't make sense. We're talking about evidence that shows he is innocent. It makes no sense that the person making a false accusation would then have the chance to opt to cover it up.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
29 Mar 2003
Posts
56,791
Location
Stoke on Trent
But that doesn't make sense. We're talking about evidence that shows he is innocent. It makes no sense that the person making a false accusation would then have the chance to opt to cover it up.

You're misunderstanding.
I was quoting :

According to article, Jerry Hayes, the prosecution barrister said the CPS hadn't seen the disc and the officer said it was clearly not disclosable because it dealt with very personal matters.

All the Officer and his team had to do was write to the accused asking if it's OK to disclose personal matters and of course the accused would say YES, ABSOLUTELY.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,899
You're misunderstanding.
I was quoting :

No, I can see what you quoted above thanks - Gogl has pointed out that I'm referring to the fact that there was personal stuff that was relevant to the case.

All the Officer and his team had to do was write to the accused asking if it's OK to disclose personal matters and of course the accused would say YES, ABSOLUTELY.

Why would they do that? Again it makes no sense - the woman has made a false accusation, there are some private text messages that show the person she has accused is in fact innocent. Asking for the woman's permission to use these texts which both show that she's made up a pack of lies (and potentially could incriminate her) makes no sense at all in that situation and it is quite clearly in her interests to deny permission if that were the case.
 
Associate
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Posts
1,240
No, I can see what you quoted above thanks - Gogl has pointed out that I'm referring to the fact that there was personal stuff that was relevant to the case.



Why would they do that? Again it makes no sense - the woman has made a false accusation, there are some private text messages that show the person she has accused is in fact innocent. Asking for the woman's permission to use these texts which both show that she's made up a pack of lies (and potentially could incriminate her) makes no sense at all in that situation and it is quite clearly in her interests to deny permission if that were the case.

He said the accused's permission. I take it this permission isn't required for the CPS to use the texts against him, so the defendant has to give permission for his own team to be allowed to view exculpatory texts? I'm getting confused.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
29 Mar 2003
Posts
56,791
Location
Stoke on Trent
No, I can see what you quoted above thanks - Gogl has pointed out that I'm referring to the fact that there was personal stuff that was relevant to the case.



Why would they do that? Again it makes no sense - the woman has made a false accusation, there are some private text messages that show the person she has accused is in fact innocent. Asking for the woman's permission to use these texts which both show that she's made up a pack of lies (and potentially could incriminate her) makes no sense at all in that situation and it is quite clearly in her interests to deny permission if that were the case.

I thought the accused was the man and I clearly wrote ACCUSED!
I said get permission off the accused.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
29 Mar 2003
Posts
56,791
Location
Stoke on Trent
He said the accused's permission. I take it this permission isn't required for the CPS to use the texts against him, so the defendant has to give permission for his own team to be allowed to view exculpatory texts? I'm getting confused.

Exactly.
The Officer mistakingly thought that it couldn't be disclosed because of personal matters so all they would have to do is ask the accused instead of hiding it.

We've just had 25 posts of nonsense because we're all on the 'same page'.
I'm only referring to the mistake of the Officer.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
33,188
You're misunderstanding.
I was quoting :



All the Officer and his team had to do was write to the accused asking if it's OK to disclose personal matters and of course the accused would say YES, ABSOLUTELY.

You've changed it to asking the accused, the accused would say yes, these texts were from the supposed victim not the accused and disclosing personal information of the victim would not be down to the accused to give the go ahead to do so or not.

I deal with disclosure and if you come across something very personal you write to the person (via their Solicitor) and ask if it's OK to disclose it.
If they say no you redact it.

You didn't say accused initially as here and as above, how in any world does it makes sense that an officer contacts the accused lawyers to ask for permission to release texts that are the supposed victims.

The confusion is you're saying ask the person whose personal details it is and then meaning the accused, when it's not his texts and there is no way the police ask the accused to give permission to release the victims information.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
29 Mar 2003
Posts
56,791
Location
Stoke on Trent
You've changed it to asking the accused, the accused would say yes, these texts were from the supposed victim not the accused and disclosing personnel information of the victim would not be down to the accused to give the go ahead to do so or not.

NO I HAVEN'T.
My posts have always been about the man/accused. Post #63

It was his disc unless I'm mistaken!
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
33,188
NO I HAVEN'T.
My posts have always been about the man/accused.

I edited and added to it, you're wrong. You're conflating two completely different things and combined them in one post, you clearly didn't start off saying accused. The personal information is hers, not the accused, if irrelevant information gathered from her is not to be submitted it isn't down to the accused to decide that in any way.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
29 Mar 2003
Posts
56,791
Location
Stoke on Trent
I edited and added to it, you're wrong. You're conflating two completely different things and combined them in one post, you clearly didn't start off saying accused. The personal information is hers, not the accused, if irrelevant information gathered from her is not to be submitted it isn't down to the accused to decide that in any way.

I thought the officer was talking about HIS personal information and the Officer thought he couldn't disclose it.

I'm not trying to catch you out but where does it say the officer had the womans disc?
I've missed that bit.
 
Back
Top Bottom