Interesting. The man who was the victim of a false allegation is named, the woman who made the false allegation isn’t. An extract:
“The Hilton Hotel also provided a written description of the CCTV footage covering the accessible toilet, which states: “According to CCTV it seems consensual from both sides. Female A initiates a hug, Male A honours this. They are hugging for quite a while then start kissing and Male A gently directs towards the disabled toilet while hugging. Female A does not resist, no force was used at all.”
Despite the inconsistencies, the judge found it “entirely odd” that the firm’s investigative partner chose to question only Rustambekov about the description of the CCTV footage and did not question Colleague 1.
The investigative partner [J4MB: a woman, Ramatu Banga, what are the chances?] told the tribunal that she concluded Colleague 1 had given “false” evidence regarding the events immediately before entering the accessible toilet, though she did not believe it was done deliberately. [J4MB emphasis. Obviously, no woman would lie ‘deliberately’. Perish the thought.]
“I find there is no other way to put this. Colleague 1’s version of events immediately before the accessible toilet incident is wholly unsupported by the CCTV footage description and wholly incredible,” the judge said. “However, the issue is whether she deliberately gave false evidence. Having given careful consideration to all of the documentary and oral evidence, I can find no basis to underpin [the partner’s] reasoning that Colleague 1 did not deliberately give false evidence.” [J4MB emphasis.]
This, the judge added, “severely damages her credibility as a witness of fact”.
If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
Our YouTube channel is here.