Comments:London cop fired for rape despite 'insufficient evidence' to prosecute

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

I'm curious as in to what evidence was produced. I'm no fan of the police, and a quick review of my contribs will reveal why, but the polis are orgs whereas officers are individuals, and I have no bias against or dislike of this man without seeing the I.P.C.C. file.

It seems clear to me we're not getting the full story. The sources I've seen don't seem to have all the evidence - why else wold the victims' group demand prosecution, the I.P.C.C. call him a rapist and the Met fire him? Most likely, he interviewed poorly; maybe something didn't check out, stuff sounded suspect. Whatever it is, it better be damn good if the Met fancy their chances before an employment tribunal.

Now, if there isn't anything else in that file, let's analyse the evidence:

• She was clearly comfortable with him, if only through inebriation, in that they cuddled happily enough and she went apparently voluntarily to sleep with him.

• She was incredibly drunk and does not remember the night.

• She claims to have awakened to discover herself being raped.

So, it seems a reasonable line of events is that she consented and passed out mid-shag. It is not actually impossible for this to have been very brief and almost unnoticeable, but if she wakes - even within seconds - without remembering how she got there, we end up here. Further, might not her recollection be impaired? Yes, drunkards can make decent witnesses, but not if they can't remember anything.

The obvious response is that he should not have taken advantage of a drunken girl, and that taking her to a locker room was pretty seedy. However, whilst not something the Met will want from their employees, giving someone what they want while they're pissed is not an offence, and oft remembered by both parties as a good night out.

Really, it's a clear not guilty verdict. However, there is no real convincing display of evidence for innocence either; in my homeland, not proven would be the correct verdict. Without more information, it's impossible to reconstruct the night's events.

So... What's missing from the public record? What was the evidence used to 'prove' rape? And, why has the public not been informed how we got to this decision? Something hasn't found it's way into the media, that much is clear. Unable to do anythhing in fair, open court, the Met seems to have created it's own little closed court - and everyone's ganging up to join in.

A drunk person can't give consent, legally speaking. The fact that millions of such acts go unpunished every day is no excuse. He admitted to having sex with her, she was drunk, that is rape. 24.159.24.36 (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That depeneds how drunk we're talking, now doesn't it? Something else we don't know.

If he had sex with her while she was so drunk as to not being able to consent that could be rape.

The article doesn't state how many hours had passed between her being drunk and the sexual intercourse.

I personally consider violent rape to be a more heinous crime than murder, as the victim is left alive, and "date rape" to be a close second, but in this instance, with the few facts reported, I would have to come out onside of the male. Females can and do make false "date rape" allegations. Because of the inhumanity of the crime, men may be judged guilty on the thinnest of evidence.

Without details of the IPCC report however, all we post here is merely conjecture.

I agree with every word of that. The Scots not proven verdict could be made for rape cases, it's so apt. I'm tempted to see if the Commission has released it's report and, if not, to use Freedom of Information to try and force them to cough it up. With retractions, of course, to protect identities and whatnot, but still...

The question is so drunk. It could be that that's the reason the CPS wimped out - and if that's the only reason, it would be bottling it.

Rape v. murder - I've previously called for comparable sentencing guidelines and laws. That, for my friends South of the border, means a mandatory life sentence with a 15-year recommended minimum before aggravating or mitigating factors; it's fairly similar for the other UK jurisdictions. Two rapes would be looking at 25-30 years, and three or more could well land you the whole life tariff - a rare example of English law I'd like imported to Scotland.

Conjecture is all we have, owing to the total lack of information in the media. That, to me, is unacceptable.

I know nothing of the specifics of the case, but it's possible that the police had evidence against him that proved he was a rapist, but was inadmissible in court for technical reasons, leading them to believe that a conviction would not be possible.