Sarah Everard murder | Wayne Couzens given whole-life sentence

kaz7

Well-Known Member
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
137,790
Location
Plugging my brain in

Three police officers who worked with Sarah Everard's killer Wayne Couzens have been charged over allegations they shared racist and misogynistic messages with him.

Two serving Metropolitan Police officers and one former officer have been charged with sending grossly offensive messages on WhatsApp, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said
 

Blue Mist

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 Aug 2005
Messages
25,635

Mr Kobayashi

Well-Known Member
Joined
1 Oct 2020
Messages
7,484
And yet today the charge was dropped. He didn't even have to appear in court, the CPS said there was no chance of conviction as there was no case to answer.
He is named and shamed, the woman remains anonymous.

This isn't strictly accurate is it?

The CPS said it didn't meet the evidential test, not because there was no case to answer.

You have made it out like it is a false accusation when in actual fact the complainant was intoxicated and concerned texts were sent from the woman and hotel staff were concerned about her being intoxicated.

He still faces a misconduct hearing.

 

Blue Mist

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 Aug 2005
Messages
25,635
This isn't strictly accurate is it?

The CPS said it didn't meet the evidential test, not because there was no case to answer.

You have made it out like it is a false accusation when in actual fact the complainant was intoxicated and concerned texts were sent from the woman and hotel staff were concerned about her being intoxicated.

He still faces a misconduct hearing.

If it doesn't meet the evidential test then you have to accept that there was no evidence of rape. In the current climate the CPS would have been desperate to get a trial and a guilty verdict.
Or are we saying he is guilty of rape because he is a copper ?
 

Mr Kobayashi

Well-Known Member
Joined
1 Oct 2020
Messages
7,484
If it doesn't meet the evidential test then you have to accept that there was no evidence of rape. In the current climate the CPS would have been desperate to get a trial and a guilty verdict.
Or are we saying he is guilty of rape because he is a copper ?

No it means there was not sufficient evidence of rape, not that there was none at all. If there was none at all he wouldn't have been charged.

In drafting my previous post I typed out a few scenarios. Lets assume that the woman and actually gave implied consent in going back to the hotel room with a man she had met on the same night in a nightclub.

She sent "concerned texts" to friends, possibly she expressed through her behaviour towards the defendant that consent is removed , e.g. body language and conversation of her unease about actually having sex, but doing it in a vague and implied way. This is important so as not to exclude him from the defence below, or she may have been explicit but there is no evidence of it.

Another consideration is she was intoxicated, so whilst consent may have been factual, it might not have been legal. If she was very drunk and at that point legally incapable of making that decision.

Defendant claims he reasonably believed that woman consented to sex. If successful that's a full defence and it results in a acquittal at trial stage if it gets there, or as barrier to getting to the trial if the CPS judge the evidence as not strong enough to stand up to this defence. This could be a genuine claim by the defendant or a lie, but unless there is evidence that contradicts this defence then it is a barrier to a successful prosecution.

There could be an innocent explanation for showing the warrant card to the hotel staff, just like showing a driver's licence, or there could be a more devious one. What if he showed the warrant to them in order to win their trust and prove he had good intentions, when in actual fact he intended to have his wicked way with the woman whether she consented or not.

All are possibilities and things to consider. Without knowing more details we can't make judgements about whether the copper should have been charged or not.
 

Blue Mist

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 Aug 2005
Messages
25,635
No it means there was not sufficient evidence of rape, not that there was none at all. If there was none at all he wouldn't have been charged.

In drafting my previous post I typed out a few scenarios. Lets assume that the woman and actually gave implied consent in going back to the hotel room with a man she had met on the same night in a nightclub.

She sent "concerned texts" to friends, possibly she expressed through her behaviour towards the defendant that consent is removed , e.g. body language and conversation of her unease about actually having sex, but doing it in a vague and implied way. This is important so as not to exclude him from the defence below, or she may have been explicit but there is no evidence of it.

Another consideration is she was intoxicated, so whilst consent may have been factual, it might not have been legal. If she was very drunk and at that point legally incapable of making that decision.

Defendant claims he reasonably believed that woman consented to sex. If successful that's a full defence and it results in a acquittal at trial stage if it gets there, or as barrier to getting to the trial if the CPS judge the evidence as not strong enough to stand up to this defence. This could be a genuine claim by the defendant or a lie, but unless there is evidence that contradicts this defence then it is a barrier to a successful prosecution.

There could be an innocent explanation for showing the warrant card to the hotel staff, just like showing a driver's licence, or there could be a more devious one. What if he showed the warrant to them in order to win their trust and prove he had good intentions, when in actual fact he intended to have his wicked way with the woman whether she consented or not.

All are possibilities and things to consider. Without knowing more details we can't make judgements about whether the copper should have been charged or not.
As I said earlier, people have decided he is guilty simply because he is a Met copper.
If he was John Smith who works for the local council people would be asking why was he named and why was he charged.
 

Mr Kobayashi

Well-Known Member
Joined
1 Oct 2020
Messages
7,484
As I said earlier, people have decided he is guilty simply because he is a Met copper.
If he was John Smith who works for the local council people would be asking why was he named and why was he charged.

He was named because it was in the public interest, and if he was a rapist he may have had a regular MO and naming him may have pushed other victims to come forward.

Depends where John Smith works in the council, in certain departments it might be in the public interest to name him.

I didn't say he was guilty, just set out the issues as I saw them.

Not going to trial or an acquittal doesn't mean someone isn't guilty.

A PE teacher from my secondary school was acquitted of offences towards female pupils, however he was subsequently banned from the profession and all roles working with children by a misconduct tribunal.

We should wait to see the result of the copper's own tribunal.
 

Don't have an account?

Register now!
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.