Man wrongly accused of rape to sue police
A STUDENT wrongly tried for rape after evidence that exonerated him had earlier been held back is to sue the police and the CPS and has called for systemic reform.
Liam Allan, 22, who was accused of six rapes and six sexual assaults, spent almost two years on bail and was three days into his trial at Croydon Crown Court when the prosecuting barrister announced he was halting proceedings because crucial information had not been provided to the defence team.
That evidence comprised a cache of sex texts sent from his alleged victim, including one, sent to a friend just weeks before Mr Allan was arrested, reportedly saying: “It wasn’t against my will or anything.” Others detailed her secret fantasies about being raped and choked during sex.
Mr Allan questioned why the texts, which “clearly undermine” the woman’s case, were not disclosed and said he felt he had “no choice” but to sue. “My life was completely upended,” he told the Mail on Sunday.
Scotland Yard is reviewing the investigation. Legal experts said the case could pave the way for other appeals.
The case of Liam Allan, the 22-year-old student who was accused of rape, only for the prosecution to collapse after evidence was withheld, is deeply troubling. The Metropolitan Police has launched an investigation to discover why text messages from the alleged victim were not disclosed, since they had a critical bearing on the accused’s ability to mount a defence. The prosecution barrister, Jerry Hayes, deserves credit for intervening when he realised what had happened, preventing what would have been a great travesty of justice.
Mr Hayes said the police had failed to alert the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to the existence of the texts, which officers considered private and not germane to the case. But it is the job of the CPS to ensure all the evidence that would warrant a prosecution has been scrutinised and a watertight case can be constructed or innocent people released. Why did they not do that in this instance? It is extraordinary that such serious charges were brought without prosecutors asking to see the cache of messages that they must have known existed, since everyone today uses a mobile phone.
To blame it on cuts is unacceptable. This is more than just slipshod procedure. The lives of too many young men are being blighted by prosecutions brought without any corroborating evidence which are then dismissed by a jury. Even if they are found innocent in the end, the time spent waiting for trial and the publicity that attaches to the defendant can wreck a life and career. The experience of Mr Allan cannot be atoned for simply with the usual remedies of disciplinary action or cash compensation. A thorough review of processes in such cases is urgently required.