GD is going to love this one - Rape case collapse

[VincentHanna]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-42365521

The Met Police is to hold an "urgent" review of a rape case after being accused of failing to disclose vital evidence.

Liam Allan, 22, was charged with 12 counts of rape and sexual assault but his trial collapsed after police were ordered to hand over phone records.

A computer disk containing 40,000 messages revealed the alleged victim pestered Mr Allen for "casual sex".

Prosecution barrister Jerry Hayes accused police of "pure incompetence".

The charges against the criminology student were dropped three days into the trial at Croydon Crown Court when Mr Hayes took over the case.

It is understood police had looked at thousands of phone messages when reviewing evidence in the case, but had failed to disclose to the prosecution and defence teams messages between the complainant and her friends which cast doubt on the allegations against Mr Allan.

The CPS said it offered no evidence in the case on Thursday as there was "no longer a realistic prospect of conviction".

Sounds like a massive balls up by the Police. They've not explicitly said the alleged victim made up the allegation of course, but that's the impression I got.

So I wonder what went on here. I strongly support victims of Rape and assault coming forward, but if this girl lied for some reason to get back at the guy in some way then all it does it harm other victims who have genuinely suffered.

 

[wesley]

guilty until proven innocent!

Disgusting

 

[Vonhelmet]

You can have consensual sex with someone one day and be raped by them the next, otherwise spousal rape wouldn't be a thing. It's not out of the question that he raped her, but it would be a whole heap harder to prove now. Big balls up by the police there. They could have looked into this and covered it off in some way before the trial, but having failed to do that they're now sunk.

 

[robfosters]

Any money in it for him?

 

[Orionaut]

The issue here isn't about false allegations, or even a general ballsed up investigation.

It is about the Police/CPS knowing full well that they had evidence that would help the defense case/exonerate the defendant and they failed to reveal it.

This isnt a balls up, it is conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The people responsible should go to prison.

This sort of thing happens way too often, especially with alleged sex crimes.

Defendants wait years for a case to come to court with the CPS on the day either declining to provide any evidence (Case dismissed) or something like this happens where exonerating evidence that should have been available within a week of the allegations being made (EG Phone records) only being revealed at the very last moment.

 

[Ayahuasca]

Why would GD love it?

I'd have him convicted on his smile alone.

 

[dowie]

presumably some of this is the result of people pouring over the stats, deciding there aren't enough rape convictions and applying pressure to the plod to come up with more convictions... not that that justifies their rather dubious behaviour in hoping/thinking they can just forget about/not reveal key evidence

frankly the dodgy cops behind this ought to be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice

 

[VincentHanna]

Why would GD love it?

Generally there is a large amount of victim blaming anyway here, so this just stokes the fire.

frankly the dodgy cops behind this ought to be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice

I just think the Police are understaffed and overworked, as are most services due to 7 years of austerity.

I know someone who works for the MET police in the control office and the hours he does are exhausting and ridiculous. The Police (and maybe the military) are the only services exempt from maximum working hours laws.

 

[dowie]

I just think the Police are understaffed and overworked, as are most services due to 7 years of austerity.

that is no excuse for withholding evidence, it seems like this guy shouldn't have been been left hanging like this in the first place - the whole case should have been dropped well before anyone wasted time with a court date etc.. they've used more resources here/taken more time than necessary so lack of resources is a rather dubious reason

 

[=XDC=FluphyBunny]

Generally there is a large amount of victim blaming anyway here, so this just stokes the fire.



I just think the Police are understaffed and overworked, as are most services due to 7 years of austerity.

I know someone who works for the MET police in the control office and the hours he does are exhausting and ridiculous. The Police (and maybe the military) are the only services exempt from maximum working hours laws.

On bail for 2 years of his life during which time the defence team had, according to the news, repeatedly requested the information be released. Can that really be written off as over worked? I'll be honest incompetence would the least I would suggest.

This seems similar to the Mark Pearson case where there was CCTV footage clearly showing he hadn't done anything and yet the police arrested him, and the CPS decided to prosecute him.

It just stinks of been a numbers game.

 

[Vonhelmet]

The issue here isn't about false allegations, or even a general ballsed up investigation.

It is about the Police/CPS knowing full well that they had evidence that would help the defense case/exonerate the defendant and they failed to reveal it.

This isnt a balls up, it is conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The people responsible should go to prison.

This sort of thing happens way too often, especially with alleged sex crimes.

Defendants wait years for a case to come to court with the CPS on the day either declining to provide any evidence (Case dismissed) or something like this happens where exonerating evidence that should have been available within a week of the allegations being made (EG Phone records) only being revealed at the very last moment.

Genuine - and perhaps very stupid - question, but are the police actually legally obliged to provide the evidence that is of use to the defence? Surely it's up to the defence to source the relevant evidence to make their case? The police didn't destroy or actively hide anything, did they? Were they asked for it and denied that it existed or refused to hand it over?

 

[Roar87]

This case will have gone to court because Police are under pressure to get more rape convictions, essentially our justice system has been politicised by feminists and liberals and an innocent man nearly had his life ruined.

 

[Vonhelmet]

This case will have gone to court because Police are under pressure to get more rape convictions, essentially our justice system has been politicised by feminists and liberals and an innocent man nearly had his life ruined.

That's a bit of a dramatic way of putting it, but I wouldn't expect anything less. We don't know that he's innocent, but we presume it. He may well be guilty, but the police have botched their opportunity to prove it.

 

[hanmer]

Genuine - and perhaps very stupid - question, but are the police actually legally obliged to provide the evidence that is of use to the defence? Surely it's up to the defence to source the relevant evidence to make their case? The police didn't destroy or actively hide anything, did they? Were they asked for it and denied that it existed or refused to hand it over?

The prosecution/police are legally required to disclose all the evidence they hold in relation to a case even that which would assist the defence or undermine the prosecution. As an accused you have the right to review all the evidence the crown holds against you.

The police when gathering evidence should look at both sides. ie look for evidence to support a prosecution but also follow leads that may show someone is innocent. Anything they hold on a case should be then given to the CPS who then in turn disclose it to the defence. It seems in this case the police had evidence they didn't disclose to the CPS. Therefore the CPS told the defence they had nothing else to give them. Then in November the police handed the extra evidence to the CPS who then realised that the prospect of a conviction was unrealistic. This evidence should have been provided from the police to the CPS 28 days after charge which is the time limit set for trials eventually going to crown court at some future date. (Police have 28 days to provide a case file to the CPS for crown court matters, 14 days for magistrates).

Bri

 

[VincentHanna]

essentially our justice system has been politicised by feminists and liberals

This is what I meant by my thread title by the way.

 

[dowie]

That's a bit of a dramatic way of putting it, but I wouldn't expect anything less. We don't know that he's innocent, but we presume it. He may well be guilty, but the police have botched their opportunity to prove it.

The police just delayed the inevitable... had they handed over the evidence earlier then the case would have been dropped earlier. Had they not handed over the evidence then they'd have perhaps ended up with an unsafe/wrongful conviction.

 

[dowie]

Genuine - and perhaps very stupid - question, but are the police actually legally obliged to provide the evidence that is of use to the defence? Surely it's up to the defence to source the relevant evidence to make their case? The police didn't destroy or actively hide anything, did they? Were they asked for it and denied that it existed or refused to hand it over?

of course they are... how are you supposed to have a fair trial if they can chose to hide away relevant facts and just cherry pick evidence that makes you look guilty... what sort of justice system would that be?

 

[VincentHanna]

It was a stupid question Von, to be fair

 

[Vonhelmet]

Like I said, I thought it was, but I wasn’t sure just how stupid. Clearly very. I guess it had just never occurred to me what the police were required to disclose. I mean, I figured there had to be some requirement given that they’d otherwise obviously have a monopoly on the evidence given it’s them that collect it...

 

[enkoda]

Why did it take 2 years on bail and 3 days in court before this came to light? If I were the accused and had that evidence I'd have been screaming it from the outset.