Our thanks to Mike for this. Despite what is now known about the case – at the end of the trial, two years after being publicly exposed as alleged rapists, the four young men were cleared of rape charges – the Telegraph headline reads:
Cirencester gang rape trial: Judge criticises detective for becoming victim’s ‘confidante’
The addition of one word (in bold) would have made it an accurate headline:
Cirencester gang rape trial: Judge criticises detective for becoming alleged victim’s ‘confidante’
The outcome of the case couldn’t have been clearer. The woman wasn’t a victim.
Extracts from the article:
A police officer failed to reveal incriminating evidence about a victim who accused four agricultural students of rape because he had become her “confidante”, a court was told.
Judge Jamie Tabor QC also criticised the Crown Prosecution Service for their handling of the gang rape case which saw the defendants put through two years of hell before they were finally cleared.
At Gloucester Crown Court, Judge Tabor said Detective Constable Ben Lewis got too close to the complainant and did not understand his job properly.
This led to “stark and very serious omissions” by the officer in failing to disclose “game changing” evidence…
“Other than the video clips, the prosecution’s decision to offer no evidence was entirely as a result of the information uncovered by the defendants’ investigation into the download of the complainant’s telephone and their insistence that the Royal Military Police material be properly examined.
“The Crown Prosecution Service [my emphasis] and Det Con Lewis must bear joint responsibility for the failure to properly disclose this game changing material.”
Will the woman in this case face a charge of having made four false rape allegation, as she should be? Almost certainly not. To the CPS, under the stewardship of the odious Alison Saunders, there would be judged to be no ‘public interest’ in bringing a prosecution. The ‘public’ almost invariably excludes men, when it comes to such areas.