[Denver]

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]

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

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by QueenOfSheba

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]

Originally Posted by ChristmasNeeve

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.]

Originally Posted by QueenOfSheba

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]

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.]

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.]

Originally Posted by Mrs Deagle

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

[Vicky.]

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]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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.]

Originally Posted by QueenOfSheba

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

And this means she cannot be raped?

[Vicky.]

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]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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]

Also she pestered him for sex not the other way round

[Vicky.]

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]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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]

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

[Vicky.]

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.]

Originally Posted by QueenOfSheba

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

who is you all?

[Denver]

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

[Tom4784]

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]

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]

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

[Northern Monkey]

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

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]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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?