Will David De Freitas Now Shut The Hell Up..?

It's been a long, long time coming, but finally:

After careful consideration, the Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC MP has decided not to order an independent inquiry into the prosecution of Eleanor De Freitas.

The request for a new inquiry or review was made by Ms De Freitas’ father David De Freitas. Ms De Freitas was charged with perverting the course of justice by the Crown Prosecution Service in 2014.

The Attorney concluded that there has already been a sufficient review of the case within the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), including by Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecution. The internal review process carefully considered the points that Mr De Freitas and others have raised, and reasonable conclusions have already been reached.

Sometimes, there are consequences. Not often enough for my liking, though.

H/T: @BarristerBlog via Twitter

Evidence? DI Julian King Don’t Need No Steenkin’ Evidence…

In a letter this month, DI Julian King, of Sapphire, the sexual offences investigation unit, said: “I stand by my decision in that I do not believe that Eleanor should ever have been prosecuted for PCJ [perverting the course of justice].”

And that was based on…?

She (Alison Saunders, the director of public prosecutions) dismissed the concerns of police officers about pursuing De Freitas for allegedly making up the complaint.

She said the police were not in a position to give a view, as they “never undertook an investigation into the alleged perverting the course of justice nor did they consider all the material provided to us by the private prosecution”.

Oh. Right. Nothing.

Now, readers might find this all rather strange – don’t the CPS usually shy away from prosecuting these ‘poor victims’ at all costs?

In fact, don’t the police usually whine and moan about how hard it is to get the CPS to prosecute anyone..?

The director of public prosecutions said that she was satisfied that her lawyers had taken the necessary steps to assure themselves De Freitas’s mental health problems had been properly considered.

She said medical experts provided by De Freitas’s legal team found that she was fit to stand trial.

“We do not take on these kind of prosecutions lightly, but the medical evidence provided to us could not justify dropping such a serious case,” she said.

Just so. There’s no escaping the fact that the CPS are on the ball (for once) no matter how much the accuser’s family may care to whinge about it:

De Freitas’s father, David, said CPS lawyers had never met or interviewed his daughter about her allegations – and that perhaps explained the discrepancy between their view and that of the rape investigators.

What would that have shown? Did he expect that they too would be unaccountably swayed by the fact that she was young, blonde and pretty, and so shouldn't face any consequences for falsely accusing someone of rape?

He said: “We are disappointed that even in light of the subsequent tragedy, the DPP is digging her heels in and standing by this prosecution. We are disappointed that she does not acknowledge there are lessons to be learnt from what happened to Eleanor.

“The failure to take on lessons has disastrous implications for trust in the Crown Prosecution Service if they are concerned about encouraging rape victims to come forward. I spoke out in the first place because I was concerned that other vulnerable women and their families should not go through what we have been through.”

But clearly not at all concerned about what men falsely accused of this heinous crime can go through.

Victim Support, Justice for Women and the charity Inquest have raised concerns about the decision to prosecute De Freitas.

Well, of course. After all, they seem to be picking losers right across the board lately, so what’s one more?

Men! Been Accused Of Rape? Believe The Accusation Is False?

Well, just shut up and take it, you penis-owning bastards…

A young woman who said she had been raped went on to kill herself after the Crown Prosecution Service put her on trial for making up the allegation in a case originally instigated by her alleged attacker.

The woman’s father is calling on the CPS to explain why they pursued a charge of perverting the course of justice against Eleanor de Freitas, 23, despite being told by police that there was no evidence she had lied, and in the knowledge that she was suffering from a psychiatric illness.

It is indeed a curious case, as the CPS is notoriously reluctant to take such action.

And I can understand the father’s grief about her suicide, and even understand why he takes her side in this (what father would do otherwise?), but he’s wrong, very wrong indeed, to demand that men should be stripped of their right to defend their name in court:

David de Freitas, her father, said: “Eleanor was a vulnerable young woman, diagnosed with bipolar, who made a complaint of rape as a result of which she herself became the subject of legal proceedings. This was despite the fact the police did not believe there to be a case against her.

“There are very serious implications for the reporting of rape cases if victims fear that they may themselves end up the subject of a prosecution if their evidence is in any way inconsistent. It is of the utmost importance that the CPS consider very carefully whether such cases are in the public interest.”

The CPS appear to have overtaken the original private prosecution (and remember, that would have a far lower balance of probabilities than a criminal case) so is he suggesting that this too should not have been allowed to proceed?

He added: “I feel that the system of fairness in this country has let me down terribly, and something needs to be done so that this can never happen again.”

I’ve no doubt he does feel that way, perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly, but maybe the accused also feels that he has been wronged - by the accusation.

Should he be denied the opportunity to challenge this slur on his name in court, as he would be allowed to do had she accused him of any other slander, such as cheating at cards? Where’s the ‘fairness’ in that?

Of course, the usual suspects have mounted their High Horses Of Righteousness and are in full gallop:

Adam Pemberton, assistant chief executive of the charity Victim Support, said the “tragic and troubling case” raised broader concerns about the use of private prosecutions against rape complainants.

“We are concerned in principle about someone who has been accused of rape being able to bring a private prosecution against the complainant because this allows that individual to use the law to do something guaranteed to intimidate their accuser,” he said.

You may indeed look at it like that. It’s a bit worrying that you do, though.

Because perhaps you’d like to consider the dictionary definition of ‘victim support’ and whether someone falsely accused might also fit that definition, and so be deserving of support and the backing of the legal system to redress that wrong.

Whether they have ovaries or testicles. It shouldn’t matter.

Update: Heresy Corner advises that the private prosecution would NOT have been to a lower balance of probabilities than the criminal case.

Quote Of The Month

The inimitable Anna Raccoon weighs in on the De Freitas case:

"As it happens, the CPS declined to bring rape charges against Mr Economou, and given the flimsy evidence they have considered sufficient to support prosecution in the past couple of years, one could sardonically surmise that Mr Economou must have been able to prove that since a date roughly six months before Ms de Freitas was even born, he had at all times been accompanied by the Archbishop of Canterbury, a company of armed Highgate feminists, and the Director of Public Prosecutions, not to mention corralled in Guantanamo prison."

Superstition...

The 130ft high bridge where a young woman was hurled to her death on a bungled rope jump is to be blown up to prevent future tragedies, the Daily Mail can reveal.

 The bridge didn’t cause her death, humans did. Still, I guess there’s precedent….

Work started Wednesday morning, less than a week after 21-year-old Brazilian Maria Eduarda Rodrigues de Freitas was hurled off the bridge to her death. The decision to demolish the dangerous structure comes after a heartbroken relative demanded action in a text to a local politician who for years has campaigned against the rogue cord and bungee operators using it.

I don’t know for certain, but if I’d been that grieving relative, I’d have wanted the law to focus on the people who failed her and not on the structure.