ThisisBigBrother.com - UK TV Forums

ThisisBigBrother.com - UK TV Forums (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/index.php)
-   Serious Debates & News (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=61)
-   -   Students 2 year rape hell as police withheld important evidence (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=332078)

Denver 15-12-2017 10:33 AM

Students 2 year rape hell as police withheld important evidence
 
Quote:

A rape trial dramatically collapsed after prosecutors discovered crucial evidence proving the defendant's innocence had not been disclosed by police.

Student Liam Allan, 22, faced up to 20 years in jail after being charged with multiple counts of rape and sexual assault following a Metropolitan Police investigation.

He always maintained he had consensual sex with the alleged victim and almost two years later, the case finally came to court.

Yesterday, all charges were dropped and Mr Allan walked free after lead barrister Jerry Hayes made a bombshell announcement.

Newly-appointed to the case as it came to trial, he ordered police to hand over all telephone records.

According to the Times, detectives had repeatedly refused requests from Mr Allan's lawyers to examine any such evidence claiming there was nothing relevant to the case.

But Mr Hayes said he discovered police had a computer disk with 40,000 messages from the woman which "blew the prosecution case out the water".

They showed the woman pestering Mr Allan for "casual sex" and telling friends how much she enjoyed sleeping with him, The Times reports.

Mr Hayes apologised to Mr Allan as he sat in the dock and offered no evidence.

Judge Peter Gower found him not guilty on all counts and demanded an investigation "at the very highest level".

He added: "Something has gone very, very wrong in the way this case was investigated and brought to court."


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".

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."

Writing in The Times, Mr Hayes said the case was an example of how the justice system "is not just creaking, it is about to croak."

On the missing evidence, he added: "I told the judge that this was the most appalling failure of disclosure that I have ever encountered."

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 spokesman for the CPS 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."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...tmare-11698537

Denver 15-12-2017 10:34 AM

The one who accused him should spend life in prison and the officers involved struck off

Niamh. 15-12-2017 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QueenOfSheba (Post 9739814)
The one who accused him should spend life in prison and the officers involved struck off

You don't even get life in prison for paedophilia so I doubt that but she absolutely should be prosecuted, that's for sure. can't believe the Police would do what they did though, for what reason would they want to?

Denver 15-12-2017 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristmasNeeve (Post 9739822)
You don't even get life in prison for paedophilia so I doubt that but she absolutely should be prosecuted, that's for sure. can't believe the Police would do what they did though, for what reason would they want to?

He was facing 20 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit and she will probably get a slapped wrist for destroying a man's life there just isn't any justice

Niamh. 15-12-2017 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QueenOfSheba (Post 9739828)
He was facing 20 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit and she will probably get a slapped wrist for destroying a man's life there just isn't any justice

Oh I agree it's a terrible thing to do to someone, I was just saying the justice system (here anyway) seems overly lenient on people in general, rapists and paedophiles in particular so I wouldn't feel comfortable for someone to get a heavier sentence for this than those crimes but they should all be bumped up imo

Amy Jade 15-12-2017 10:58 AM

I think in situations like this the person who made the false accusation should face the sentence the person they lied about would have served.

Vicky. 15-12-2017 11:00 AM

I am not getting why her sending messages pestering him for sex, and even having consensual sex with him at one stage, means he could absolutely not rape her? Husbands rape their wives ffs...consent once does not mean consent for life.

I don't understand why the police would withhold evidence that they knew they would have to show later in the trial though. Somethings very odd about this whole thing.

Niamh. 15-12-2017 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs Deagle (Post 9739839)
I think in situations like this the person who made the false accusation should face the sentence the person they lied about would have served.

You'd have to be pretty sure it actually was a false allegation though (and I think that would be very hard to do) just because they don't have enough evidence to convict a person of rape doesn't mean the accuser was lying :think:

Vicky. 15-12-2017 11:07 AM

When lies can be proved, the accuser DOES get a long sentence. Usually longer than the accused would have done if found guilty of rape. Because lying about rape is worse than raping. Clearly.

Denver 15-12-2017 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9739841)
I am not getting why her sending messages pestering him for sex, and even having consensual sex with him at one stage, means he could absolutely not rape her? Husbands rape their wives ffs...consent once does not mean consent for life.

I don't understand why the police would withhold evidence that they knew they would have to show later in the trial though. Somethings very odd about this whole thing.

She told friends she enjoyed having sex with him and had rape fantasies

Vicky. 15-12-2017 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QueenOfSheba (Post 9739875)
She told friends she enjoyed having sex with him and had rape fantasies

And this means she cannot be raped?

Vicky. 15-12-2017 11:21 AM

I'm not saying she WAS by the way, but that having a previously consensual sexual relationship with someone does not mean you cannot be raped by said person. Like some seem to think it does.

Denver 15-12-2017 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9739885)
And this means she cannot be raped?

Well if you say you enjoyed sex with the person you then claimed raped you on said night then you wasn't raped you can't pick and choose what happened .

Men will always be guilty even when they are not when it comes to rape

Denver 15-12-2017 11:32 AM

Also she pestered him for sex not the other way round

Vicky. 15-12-2017 11:37 AM

Do you have access to more information than the story you posted?

Again, enjoying sex with someone does not mean they cannot then rape you.

I actually can't make any sense of the polices decision to keep the messages until the last minute. Hoping more comes out about this as its just so confusing.

Denver 15-12-2017 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9739896)
Do you have access to more information than the story you posted?

Again, enjoying sex with someone does not mean they cannot then rape you.

I actually can't make any sense of the polices decision to keep the messages until the last minute. Hoping more comes out about this as its just so confusing.

Trial collapsed when 40,000 messages revealed she pestered him for sex

You cant pester someone for sex then accuse them of rape

The texts revealed the woman asked Mr Allan for casual sex and fantasised about rough and violent intercourse and even being raped despite telling police she didn't like being intimate with men.


Yet another hole in the case

Barrister Jerry Hayes claims the detective in charge told him sexual messages sent by the woman to Liam Allan and her friends were 'too personal' to share.

Too Personal?

Denver 15-12-2017 11:46 AM

There was enough evidence to prove he is innocent so why are you still seeing him as guilty?

Vicky. 15-12-2017 11:48 AM

There was not enough evidence to 'prove he is innocent' at all. Thats your own spin on it.

And I am not saying he is guilty. I am saying that you can still be raped off someone you have previously enjoyed sex with. And that this whole thing is extremely odd.

Niamh. 15-12-2017 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QueenOfSheba (Post 9739905)
There was enough evidence to prove he is innocent so why are you still seeing him as guilty?

who is you all? :suspect:

Denver 15-12-2017 11:49 AM

You dont tell someone you want them to rape you then cry Rape

Tom4784 15-12-2017 12:04 PM

I'm with Vicky, I don't think this alone proves his innocence unless there's more that hasn't been said. Just because she wanted sex at the time of these messages doesn't mean she did when he wanted to. There's simply no evidence to convict or vindicate him by the looks of it.

bots 15-12-2017 12:05 PM

there seems to be some gross misconceptions about the legal process. If the police submitted all potentially relevant evidence in a case, each case would probably take 50 years to be heard. Its based on 2 criteria, is it admissible as evidence, and does it prove the crime (or help prove the crime)

We as outsiders have no idea on the background of the evidence, so we can hardly make a judgement on its quality, reliability or anything else.

Denver 15-12-2017 12:21 PM

The is more evidence to prove he didn't do he then he did it

Northern Monkey 15-12-2017 01:33 PM

It’s almost as if the police were trying to get their rape conviction figures up. :pipe:

But yeah if it could actually be proven she’s a lying bitch then she should be banged up as long as he would’ve been.

user104658 15-12-2017 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9739907)
There was not enough evidence to 'prove he is innocent' at all. Thats your own spin on it.

And I am not saying he is guilty. I am saying that you can still be raped off someone you have previously enjoyed sex with. And that this whole thing is extremely odd.

It depends really, the story isn't clear about the nature of the messages she sent to her friends... the way I read it, she potentially sent messages about the specific "night in question" expressing that it was consensual / enjoyed and then later reported the SAME sexual encounter as rape.

That's the only way I can see the messages meaning the case was instantly dismissed. Otherwise, they would be irrelevant to the crime in question and the trial would have continued?

Kizzy 15-12-2017 02:00 PM

The police wouldn't have to withhold evidence to get rape figures up... That would suggest that women are not being raped daily and they are.

I don't like this, the attempt is to undermine public confidence in both the police and the justice systems in rape cases....Hmmmm, very odd indeed.

Crimson Dynamo 15-12-2017 02:00 PM

where is The Truth when we need him to make sense of this mess?

Niamh. 15-12-2017 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isaiah 7:14 (Post 9739999)
where is The Truth when we need him to make sense of this mess?

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/...20130821051700

joeysteele 15-12-2017 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristmasNeeve (Post 9739822)
You don't even get life in prison for paedophilia so I doubt that but she absolutely should be prosecuted, that's for sure. can't believe the Police would do what they did though, for what reason would they want to?

Oh it's frightening what could have come about in this case.
Really shocking, thankfully barely just exposed in time however the devastation to this lad's life is a disgrace.

I agree she should be prosecuted.
I really hope he can now lift himself up in time and confidently live his life from now on.

smudgie 15-12-2017 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9739887)
I'm not saying she WAS by the way, but that having a previously consensual sexual relationship with someone does not mean you cannot be raped by said person. Like some seem to think it does.

Indeed.
More common than you expect as well.:fist:

user104658 15-12-2017 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christmas treeza (Post 9739998)
The police wouldn't have to withhold evidence to get rape figures up... That would suggest that women are not being raped daily and they are.

Rape conviction stats are very low, though, especially in comparison to rape allegation stats... and even in comparison to how often charges go ahead.

Vicky. 15-12-2017 04:02 PM

Times story

Quote:

A judge has called for an inquiry after the trial of a student accused of rape collapsed because police had failed to reveal evidence proving his innocence.

Liam Allan, 22, spent almost two years on bail and three days in the dock at Croydon crown court before his trial was halted yesterday.

The judge demanded a review of disclosure of evidence by the Metropolitan Police, Britain’s biggest force, and called for an inquiry at the “very highest level” of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). He warned of the risks of “serious miscarriages of justice” after hearing that, to save costs, material was not always handed to defence lawyers.

Mr Allan, a criminology undergraduate at Greenwich University, had been warned that he would be jailed for at least ten years if found guilty after being charged with six rapes and six sexual assaults against a woman who told police that she does not enjoy sex. Mr Allan said the sex was consensual and that the woman was acting maliciously because he would not see her again after he started university.

His lawyers had repeatedly been refused access to records from the woman’s telephone because police insisted that there was nothing of interest for the prosecution or defence, the court was told.

When a new prosecution barrister took over the case the day before the start of the trial, he ordered police to hand over any telephone records. It was revealed that they had a computer disk containing copies of 40,000 messages.

They showed that she continued to pester Mr Allan for “casual sex”, told friends how much she enjoyed it with him and discussed her fantasies of being raped and having violent sex.

Jerry Hayes, the prosecuting barrister, told the court yesterday that he would offer no evidence. “I would like to apologise to Liam Allan. There was a terrible failure in disclosure which was inexcusable,” he said.

Mr Hayes, a former Tory MP and criminal barrister for 40 years, added: “There could have been a very serious miscarriage of justice, which could have led to a very significant period of imprisonment and life on the sex offenders register. It appears the [police] officer in the case has not reviewed the disk, which is quite appalling.”

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.” His mother, Lorraine Allan, 46, a bank worker, hugged her son as he was surrounded by friends who had been lined up to give character evidence if the trial continued.

“In the current climate, in these sorts of cases, you are guilty until you can prove you are innocent,” she said. “The assumption is there is no smoke without fire.”

Radhia Karaa, a district crown prosecutor, wrote to the court admitting that the handling of the telephone downloads “has fallen below the standard that we expect”. Judge Peter Gower found Mr Allan not guilty on all charges. “There is something that has gone wrong and it is a matter that the CPS, in my judgment, should be considering at the very highest level,” he said. “Otherwise there is a risk not only of this happening again but that the trial process will not detect what has gone wrong and there will be a very serious miscarriage of justice. He [Mr Allan] leaves the courtroom an innocent man without a stain on his character.”

The judge said that police must tell prosecutors about all material collected during their investigations. “It seems to me to be a recipe for disaster if material is not viewed by a lawyer,” he said. “Something has gone very, very wrong in the way this case was investigated and brought to court.”

Julia Smart, for the defence, said she received the details of the woman’s text messages on the evening before she was due to cross-examine her, so stayed up reading them. When she told the court what she had found, the trial was halted. She said she believed that evidence from phones was being withheld from defence lawyers to save money.

Alison Saunders, the director of public prosecutions, has pushed to increase the prosecution and conviction of sexual offences. Rapes recorded by police have risen from 12,295 in 2002-03 to 45,100 last year but the number of rapes referred to the CPS for a decision on charging has stayed broadly static. Of the 35,000 adult and child rapes recorded by police in 2015-16, just over 6,800 were referred to police, a fall of about 690 on the previous year, according to Rape Monitoring Group figures. A Met spokeswoman said: “We are aware of this case being dismissed and are carrying out an urgent assessment to establish the circumstances.”
not sure if we are allowed to copy and paste full articles or not, but since its behind a paywall...

Still cannot make any sense of the polices actions in all of this.

user104658 15-12-2017 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9740185)

Still cannot make any sense of the polices actions in all of this.

My opinion? It sounds like there was a lot of data and they probably didn't bother to have someone go through it properly before simply believing the person making the claim and making an arrest / charges... at which point someone decided to cover up that oversight by saying there was nothing on there worth saying. Potentially... they never looked through them.

But yeah, reading that again it sounds basically like the sexual encounter happened, she talked (favourably) about it to friends afterwards and messaged him multiple times about hooking up again, was turned down, and then reported the initial hook-up as not being consensual...

Vicky. 15-12-2017 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toy Santa (Post 9740201)
My opinion? It sounds like there was a lot of data and they probably didn't bother to have someone go through it properly before simply believing the person making the claim and making an arrest / charges... at which point someone decided to cover up that oversight by saying there was nothing on there worth saying. Potentially... they never looked through them.

But yeah, reading that again it sounds basically like the sexual encounter happened, she talked (favourably) about it to friends afterwards and messaged him multiple times about hooking up again, was turned down, and then reported the initial hook-up as not being consensual...

I find that quite odd, given the police tend to disbelieve people making rape allegations, and also tend to try to find some way to blame the victim D:

Seems the total opposite happened in this one case

bots 15-12-2017 04:24 PM

there are a few possible explanations, my top 2 would be - meeting targets set for the department or the chap had previous history with the police that they didn't get a conviction for so were balancing things up

Denver 15-12-2017 04:25 PM

I wouldn't rule out her knowing someone dealing with it

user104658 15-12-2017 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9740219)
I find that quite odd, given the police tend to disbelieve people making rape allegations, and also tend to try to find some way to blame the victim D:

Seems the total opposite happened in this one case

I'd imagine that it totally depends on the various prejudices of the officers directly involved and also the personalities and circumstances of the suspect and claimant. It shouldn't... but I'm sure it does.

Kizzy 16-12-2017 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toy Santa (Post 9740040)
Rape conviction stats are very low, though, especially in comparison to rape allegation stats... and even in comparison to how often charges go ahead.

What are you saying that all these 'allegations' are so flimsy they're having to withhold evidence to get a conviction through? What a crock of ****.

regardless I was perfectly aware it was in relation to convictions thank you, I didn't need that explaining to me .

user104658 16-12-2017 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christmas treeza (Post 9741029)
What are you saying that all these 'allegations' are so flimsy they're having to withhold evidence to get a conviction through? What a crock of ****.

regardless I was perfectly aware it was in relation to convictions thank you, I didn't need that explaining to me .

Its not about the allegations being flimsy its because the nature of the crime (the fact that there are very rarely any witnesses) means that securing a conviction is notoriously difficult.

And given that you seemed to be questioning "why they would need to resort to underhand tactics to raise conviction stats", when genuine incidences of rape happen every day, it sort of seems like you did need that explained to you :hee:.

Kizzy 16-12-2017 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toy Santa (Post 9741042)
Its not about the allegations being flimsy its because the nature of the crime (the fact that there are very rarely any witnesses) means that securing a conviction is notoriously difficult.

And given that you seemed to be questioning "why they would need to resort to underhand tactics to raise conviction stats", when genuine incidences of rape happen every day, it sort of seems like you did need that explained to you :hee:.



I'm not questioning it... it was an entirely rhetorical question. They wouldn't have to resort to that the force a conviction.That was my point, having said that why are you trawling after me again in a vain attempt to interpret what I say?

Are you really so short sighted to suggest that unless there are witnesses it is impossible to assess if a woman has been raped?... This is a prime example of my issue in another thread you accused me of having no direct experience from which to draw a conclusion on one issue and concluded my input was irrelevant... and here you are voicing how difficult it is for a woman to prove she was raped :/

I will make myself very clear to you to prevent you feeling the need to school me on my own points.
There are cases where it is very obvious a woman has been raped without witnesses, that was my point here. I am aware of the difficulty in securing a conviction in cases of date rape or historical abuse.


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.