'Urgent' police review after rape trial collapses

[Deleted]

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-12-15/u...ail-collapses/

An "urgent" review is being carried out by police after a rape prosecution collapsed when vital evidence was revealed at the last minute.

Liam Allan, aged 22, was charged with 12 counts of rape and sexual assault against one woman and faced the possibility of more than 10 years in prison and a lifetime on the sex offenders' register.

But the day before his trial police revealed 40,000 previously undisclosed text messages between the complainant and her friends which cast doubt on the case against Mr Allan and suggested the alleged victim had pestered him for "casual sex".

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said they offered no evidence in the case on Thursday, as it was decided "there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction".

The judge said had this information not come to light there could have been a serious miscarriage of justice and called for a review of disclosure of evidence by the Metropolitan Police, as well as an inquiry at the CPS, The Times reported.

Speaking outside court, Mr Allan told The Times: "I can't explain the mental torture of the past two years. I feel betrayed by the system which I had believed would do the right thing - the system I want to work in."

A Scotland Yard spokesman said: "We are aware of this case being dismissed from court and are carrying out an urgent assessment to establish the circumstances which led to this action being taken.

"We are working closely with the Crown Prosecution Service and keeping in close contact with the victim whilst this process takes place."

A CPS spokesman said: "A charge can only be brought if a prosecutor is satisfied that both stages of the Full Code test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors are met, that is, that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and that a prosecution is required in the public interest.

"All prosecutions are kept under continuous review and prosecutors are required to take account of any change in circumstances as the case develops.

"In November 2017, the police provided more material in the case of Liam Allan. Upon a review of that material, it was decided that there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction.

"Therefore we offered no evidence in the case against Liam Allan at a hearing on December 14 2017.

"We will now be conducting a management review together with the Metropolitan Police to examine the way in which this case was handled."

Something I thought people here would find interesting

[Underverse]

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-12-15/u...ail-collapses/



Something I thought people here would find interesting

This is why we need to remember that people are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Deleted]

"But the day before his trial police revealed 40,000 previously undisclosed text messages between the complainant and her friends which cast doubt on the case against Mr Allan and suggested the alleged victim had pestered him for "casual sex"."

That makes rape impossible or what?

[Leyre]

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-12-15/u...ail-collapses/



Something I thought people here would find interesting

Better to have an innocent in prison than a potential rapist free, right? /s

[Machismo]

It would appear that someone was blocking that evidence for a long time. The prosecutor and/or police investigator may need to go to prison.

[Deleted]

40,000 texts?!

[TEHPALLYTANK]

"But the day before his trial police revealed 40,000 previously undisclosed text messages between the complainant and her friends which cast doubt on the case against Mr Allan and suggested the alleged victim had pestered him for "casual sex"."

That makes rape impossible or what?

If she was a willing participant and above the age of consent (it is 16 in the UK), then yeah, it isn't rape.

The fact that pertinent evidence was withheld is absolutely frightening.

[Deleted]

If she was a willing participant and above the age of consent (it is 16 in the UK), then yeah, it isn't rape.

Pestering someone for sex doesn't mean they can't rape you at some point even if you've had sex with them at some point willingly...

[TEHPALLYTANK]

Pestering someone for sex doesn't mean they can't rape you at some point even if you've had sex with them at some point willingly...

Considering it was forty-thousand texts, I'm guessing they were in a relationship and the texts likely revealed that. While it is possible she was raped, the case clearly isn't strong enough for them to prosecute in light of the additional evidence.

[Underverse]

No, they're either guilty or innocent regardless of what can be proven. You're speaking about how the courts work. Which is true.

You understood what I meant, so why are you making this semantic distinction?

[Deleted]

Considering it was forty-thousand texts, I'm guessing they were in a relationship and the texts likely revealed that.

Yeah, see. Being in a relationship with someone doesn't mean you can't be raped.

While it is possible she was raped, the case clearly isn't strong enough for them to prosecute in light of the additional evidence.

Additional evidence, such as?

[Underverse]

Pestering someone for sex doesn't mean they can't rape you at some point even if you've had sex with them at some point willingly...

Rape cases are difficult to prosecute because distinguishing between sex and rape is often very difficult and reliant only on the victim's mindset at the time of the interaction. It's almost impossible to prove mindset, which is why police have to turn to circumstantial evidence as a standard for these types of cases. If the circumstantial evidence suggests that rape may not have occurred, that's more than enough to cast doubt in the absence of other strong evidence.

On a tangential note, I think this is a reasonable justification for using non-judicial means of rape deterrence, due to the weakness of the justice system on this particular issue. By that I mean:
1 - support a culture wherein rape is unacceptable
2 - give women (and others) means by which to defend themselves non-lethally
3 - promote emotional strength in cases where rape does occur, instead of victim mentality

We're doing an okay job at instituting these policies, but a lot more work can be done on 1 and especially 3.

[Deleted]

Rape cases are difficult to prosecute because distinguishing between sex and rape is often very difficult and reliant only on the victim's mindset at the time of the interaction. It's almost impossible to prove mindset, which is why police have to turn to circumstantial evidence as a standard for these types of cases. If the circumstantial evidence suggests that rape may not have occurred, that's more than enough to cast doubt in the absence of other strong evidence.

They're difficult to prosecute because people working in law enforcement have stereotypes about victims and how victims behave. If you don't show signs of being traumatized enough for their stereotype then they don't believe you even if you were raped.

[Underverse]

They're difficult to prosecute because people working in law enforcement have stereotypes about victims and how victims behave. If you don't show signs of being traumatized enough for their stereotype then they don't believe you even if you were raped.

No, it's because you cannot - in ANY area of law - simply trust the word of one individual over the word of another (with no supporting evidence) when determining guilt.

[Deleted]

No, it's because you cannot - in ANY area of law - simply trust the word of one individual over the word of another (with no supporting evidence) when determining guilt.

Even if you sustain injuries they rather believe the perpetrator when they claim you were in on it. We had a case here where some gang raped a girl and then shoved a bottle in her vagina, causing injuries but they walked free. She was just "shy" when she tried to keep her legs closed.

[Underverse]

Even if you sustain injuries they rather believe the perpetrator when they claim you were in on it. We had a case here where some gang raped a girl and then shoved a bottle in her vagina, causing injuries but they walked free, she was obviously in on it because she willingly had sex with one of them, that means she must have wanted to have sex with all of them and have a bottle shoved forcefully in her vagina so that it caused tearing.

Having been on a jury twice, I'm keenly aware of how cases can be simplified in media and misrepresented for the benefit of different parties. So I won't comment on this particular case, which you might be right or wrong about, but I will say that sometimes the courts get it wrong. To suggest that the courts often get it wrong, or have intrinsic biases that allow perpetrators to walk free, is a baseless statement.

[AeneasBK]

40 000 texts, even if to a large group of friends is still a pretty gross amount of text messages; jesus.

[Deleted]

Having been on a jury twice, I'm keenly aware of how cases can be simplified in media and misrepresented for the benefit of different parties. So I won't comment on this particular case, which you might be right or wrong about, but I will say that sometimes the courts get it wrong. To suggest that the courts often get it wrong, or have intrinsic biases that allow perpetrators to walk free, is a baseless statement.

They do get it wrong often in rape cases because people are not their stereotype victim.

[Underverse]

Even if you sustain injuries they rather believe the perpetrator when they claim you were in on it. We had a case here where some gang raped a girl and then shoved a bottle in her vagina, causing injuries but they walked free. She was just "shy" when she tried to keep her legs closed.

I'll also add that in the case of rape, I think it's better that fewer innocents are jailed at the cost of more perpetrators walking free, instead of more perpetrators being jailed at the cost of more innocents being jailed. As in, the bar of evidence for this crime - which causes far less damage than murder, in the vast majority of cases, at the risk of destroying innocent lives - should be sufficiently high.

And to make up for this judicial weakness, we should promote cultural solutions to rape, as I mentioned before.

[Dys]

Yeah, see. Being in a relationship with someone doesn't mean you can't be raped.


Additional evidence, such as?

Raped or not, she withheld evidence that muddles the entire scenario and purposefully obfuscated the truth to seek out a criminal charge of a sexual nature on someone that she, clearly, has an established history with. There's no reason to believe anything this woman says anymore, she is a proven liar, by her own actions, which just happens to be the very thing that undid her claims.

Being a woman doesn't mean that every claim you make is automatically true. Lying about your connection to your assailant is a sure fire way to shoot yourself in the foot though.