Rape accused acquitted after judge criticises detective as ‘evasive’

A JUDGE threw out “incriminatory” evidence against a rape accused after branding a detective investigating the case “evasive” and “not credible”.

Jake Hawkins, 22, was found not guilty of raping a woman at a flat in Dundee in 2016 following a trial at the High Court in Edinburgh.

Yesterday, it emerged trial judge Lady Scott barred the jury from heari ng Hawkins’ police interview during the case after ruling detectives’ questioning of him “wholly improper”.

She found it inadmissible after ruling detectives had sought to “undermine” Hawkins lawyer – who had told him to answer “no comment” to all questions.

He told the court that police made him feel his solicitor “didn’t care or know what he was doing” and that the lawyer who had given him advice before his interview was “rubbish and didn’t know what was going on”.

As a result, after more than an hour of maintaining his right to silence, Hawkins said he “didn’t know whether he could trust his lawyer” and that he was “making a bad decision listening to the solicitor”.

He then told officers “it seemed wrong saying no comment” before giving a lengthy narrative of “incriminatory” statements to police.

But Lady Scott ruled the interview was “tainted” because of “undue pressure” applied to Hawkins. She said statements given by accused people must be “spontaneous and voluntary” and that the Crown “had not established this interview was fair and the statements made can properly be said to be voluntary”.

And in a scathing section of a 12-page written judgment, the judge criticised one officer – identifed only as DC Anderson of Tayside Division in Dundee – and said police had effectively “cross examined” Hawkins, a tactic long ruled illegal.

She said: “I did not find [him] a credible witness. I found him evasive and in particular I found his denial that he sought to undermine the legal advice given, not credible.”