Bent Coppers
The Times reported on an interesting case the other day involving a young man who faced a lengthy prison sentence because the police failed to release evidence which ended up proving his innocence.
The Met Police do not provide any explanation for these extraordinary events, but as things stand serving officers could simply walk away and retire instead of being held to account for their behaviour.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/judge-slams-met-police-after-liam-allan-cleared-in-rape-trial-pcqsp5x9s
Judge slams Met Police after Liam Allan cleared in rape trial
Officers sat on evidence that proved innocence
By David Brown - The Times
Liam Allan with his mother, Lorraine Allan, and supporters at Croydon crown court. “I knew the truth,” she said yesterday after her son was cleared of all charges - BEN GURR FOR THE TIMES
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.”
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.”
Bent Coppers (14/12/17)
The Times reports that the UK Government has backed away from a long overdue reform of the police service which would have stopped the practice of serving officers being allowed to retire even if they face serious disciplinary charges.
The original proposals have been significantly watered down and to its shame the Police Federation (the police trade union) argued that it was 'more cost effective' to let potentially serious wrongdoers walk away rather than be held to account for their behaviour.
Now this is the kind of issue on which you would expect cross party agreement, but who knows maybe the Scottish Parliament will pick up the baton since the new rules from the Home Office will only affect England and Wales.
Police officers facing misconduct inquiries are allowed to retire
By Fiona Hamilton - The Times
There were concerns that scores of officers accused of wrongdoing were quitting to avoid punishment - PA:PRESS ASSOCIATION WIRE
Police officers under investigation for misconduct are to be allowed to resign or retire after the government reversed one of its key police reforms.
In January 2015 Theresa May, as home secretary, announced regulations that kept officers facing misconduct proceedings in their jobs until the outcome, if the possible penalty was dismissal.
The move came after concerns were voiced that scores of officers accused of wrongdoing were quitting to avoid punishment, in many cases moving to another force.
At the time the Home Office said that it was making the change to ensure that “officers were held to account for their actions”, so that the truth could be established in public and police learnt the full lessons of each incident of serious misconduct.
However, regulations that come into force on Friday, under the Policing and Crime Act which received royal assent in January, will again allow officers to resign or retire before proceedings.
Misconduct proceedings will continue in the absence of the officer. Former officers found guilty of gross misconduct will be placed on a “barred list”, as will officers who are sacked after misconduct hearings.
The list will not be made public, but can be reviewed by other forces. Gross misconduct proceedings could also be brought against officers in the 12 months after they have resigned or retired.
It is understood that the Home Office reversed its rule change, with those safeguards, because forces have had to pay the salaries of officers who would otherwise have left. There have been numerous cases in which officers have been suspended on full pay while the subject of misconduct investigations.
The Police Federation said that letting officers retire was more cost effective.
The new regulations acknowledge the “public perception” that some police officers who committed serious wrongdoing had avoided accountability through resignation or retirement, damaging public confidence.
The rules add: “At the same time, not allowing officers accused of misconduct to resign or retire while investigations are ongoing creates an unsatisfactory situation for the police force and the officer concerned.”
A Home Office spokeswoman said that hearings would include former officers and that they would be prevented from rejoining the service if a hearing resulted in a finding amounting to dismissal.
Police officers under investigation for misconduct are to be allowed to resign or retire after the government reversed one of its key police reforms.
In January 2015 Theresa May, as home secretary, announced regulations that kept officers facing misconduct proceedings in their jobs until the outcome, if the possible penalty was dismissal.
The move came after concerns were voiced that scores of officers accused of wrongdoing were quitting to avoid punishment, in many cases moving to another force.
At the time the Home Office said that it was making the change to ensure that “officers were held to account for their actions”, so that the truth could be established in public and police learnt the full lessons of each incident of serious misconduct.
However, regulations that come into force on Friday, under the Policing and Crime Act which received royal assent in January, will again allow officers to resign or retire before proceedings.
Misconduct proceedings will continue in the absence of the officer. Former officers found guilty of gross misconduct will be placed on a “barred list”, as will officers who are sacked after misconduct hearings.
The list will not be made public, but can be reviewed by other forces. Gross misconduct proceedings could also be brought against officers in the 12 months after they have resigned or retired.
It is understood that the Home Office reversed its rule change, with those safeguards, because forces have had to pay the salaries of officers who would otherwise have left. There have been numerous cases in which officers have been suspended on full pay while the subject of misconduct investigations.
The Police Federation said that letting officers retire was more cost effective.
The new regulations acknowledge the “public perception” that some police officers who committed serious wrongdoing had avoided accountability through resignation or retirement, damaging public confidence.
The rules add: “At the same time, not allowing officers accused of misconduct to resign or retire while investigations are ongoing creates an unsatisfactory situation for the police force and the officer concerned.”
A Home Office spokeswoman said that hearings would include former officers and that they would be prevented from rejoining the service if a hearing resulted in a finding amounting to dismissal.
