Trigger warnings: Alleged Rape & Suicide

If you haven’t already done so, please view my video appeal ‘Justice for Eleanor’ Justice for Eleanor 

In spite of my MP writing to Google to reinstate the above link to my video 'Justice for Eleanor', it appears that Alexander Economou has, for the second time, been successful in having my YouTube link removed. Again, Google/YouTube have not had the sense of fairness or even courtesy to contact me for my input into their decision-making to block this video for the second time. So, again I am obliged to provide a Dropbox link to this video here Justice for Eleanor 

If it is worth covering up, it must be worth seeing......!

It now seems that Google/YouTube have reinstated the link. As we have still not received an explanation or apology (not even to my MP!), I am keeping both links available

My video explains the rationale for this petition.

A Plea for a Full Public Inquiry of the UK Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for continuing the Private Prosecution by Alexander Economou (using his family's vast wealth) against my daughter, Eleanor de Freitas for allegedly lying about a rape allegation she made against him.

Eleanor, who had bipolar, took her own life on 4th April 2014, just days before her trial was due to start. I believe that if the CPS had followed their own procedures and obeyed the Court's Order, Eleanor would still be alive today. 

If you or I disobeyed a Court Order, the CPS would prosecute us; if the CPS disobeys a Court Order.........!

As a minimum, the following questions remain unanswered:-

Why the CPS didn’t follow their own protocol and interview Eleanor under caution, so they could hear her side of the story. 
Why the CPS failed to obey the Court’s Order and delivered pivotal video evidence 5 weeks late 
Why the CPS completely ignored the clear warning of suicide. 
Why the CPS were so willing to ignore the clear advice of the police who had first-hand experience of both individuals, and did NOT support this prosecution 
Why the CPS were so willing to support a man who jokes about drugging women and tying them up, and laughed during his police interview 
Why the CPS were so willing to support a man whom a High Court judge described as 'vindictive', ‘offensive’, ‘bullying’ and ‘vengeful’ 
HOW the CPS could ever think that the words no sex could even possibly 'foreshadow' agreement to a sexual attack !

I am calling on Lord Hermer, Attorney General, to do two things:-

1.     Order a full Public Inquiry into the conduct and decision-making of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in continuing Alexander Economou’s private prosecution against Eleanor de Freitas for making her complaint of rape against him.

2.   Remove the Gagging Order on David de Freitas, and his legal team, so he can publicly expose the failings by the CPS in the document covered by that Gagging Order, namely the Advice Note by Neil Moore, prepared for Alison Saunders dated 11/11/2014 (NMAN).

My editable suggested draft letter to Lord Hermer that accompanies my video https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9esdclg0qea8fhvr0gs24/Hermer-January-2025-Appeal.docx?rlkey=hxygw80ra36nxwako7uixkfgk&dl=0

makes reference to various documents whose contents are provided below, with various explanations. Before we deal with those contents, allow me to dispel a myth. 

Please do not be disheartened if you receive an automated response from the Attorney General's Office to your letter to Lord Hermer which includes the words :-

'Please note that, although the Attorney General superintends the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Serious Fraud Office (SFO), and Government Legal Department (GLD), these departments are operationally independent and the Attorney General’s Office is unable to intervene in individual cases or comment on any active proceedings.' (my emphasis)

On 26th June 2018, the day that would have been Eleanor's 28th birthday, had she been alive, Sir Jeremy Wright, as Attorney General, issued a Press Release refusing to order a Public Inquiry into the CPS. He considered the CPS's own internal inquiry of itself, via Dame Alison Saunders as Director of Public Prosecutions i.e. Head of the CPS, to be sufficient enquiry. In effect, the CPS 'marking its own homework' was all that was needed!

If the Attorney General really was 'unable to intervene', there wouldn't even be a basis for issuing this insensitively timed Press Release above.

In my video, I pointed out that I was the first person to use the ‘Public Interest’ defence to a claim for libel, successfully. 

When this judgment was published, we reengaged with the Attorney General (Sir Jeremy Wright) to obtain a Public Inquiry into the conduct and decision-making of the CPS in continuing Alexander Economou’s (AE) private prosecution against Eleanor for ‘perverting the course of justice’ i.e. lying about her rape allegation against AE

I considered many of the points made in the libel judgment to be supportive of a Public Inquiry. I provide below the points I made to Sir Jeremy via my solicitor Harriet Wistrich.

 

At a very early stage  in the trial, the judge made the point that neither the trial, nor anything stated stated therein either confirms or implies  the truth of any allegation as to rape or lying about rape. At all times, Alexander Economou has maintained that all sex between him and Eleanor was consensual.

 

At all times, my target has been the Crown Prosecution Service for ignoring the Police without clear reasoning and for not adhering to their own guidance and procedures. At para 253 below, the Judge stated 'Mr de Freitas published in good faith, for proper purposes, taking aim at the CPS not Mr Economou; and he had a sufficient factual basis for writing what he did.’ After ten years of no answers, I believe that what was stated in my 'Justice for Eleanor' video and below continues to be factual and continues to target the CPS. My criticisms of Alexander Economou's conduct are only made in the context of the bearing they have on the analysis and adherence to procedures and guidance that I believe that the CPS failed to do

 

Excerpts of the Economou v de Freitas Libel Judgment 

-        supportive of a Public Inquiry into the conduct and decision-making of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)

-        regarding the decision of the CPS to take over and continue the private prosecution of Eleanor de Freitas for Perverting the Course of Justice (pcj) commenced by Alexander Economou

134 ‘Mr Economou’s motives for bringing this action are mixed, and are in part vindictive’ (my emphasis)

148 ‘When a person suffering from mental ill-health kills herself at a time when she is facing public prosecution for making a false allegation of rape there is a clear public interest in considering whether there is a causal link and, if so, whether the decision-making was at fault and there are lessons to be learned.’ (my emphasis)

149 ‘The facts of this case touched on two additional matters of public interest. One is the role of an inquest as a vehicle for exploring, in public, the propriety of decision-making in this area, in this case; put another way, the extent to which the inquest process ought to accommodate an investigation of the public interest issues raised by the facts of the prosecution. The other is the desirability of permitting private prosecutions for allegedly false complaints of rape, or for that matter, sexual crime more generally.   The first of these topics is in my judgment not only an important matter of public interest, it is also one to which the publications complained of related.  They were “on” that matter, within the meaning of s 4, as they were “on” the other matters identified above.  The inquest was imminent at the time of the initial publication and pending at all material times.  The matters aired in the articles were directly relevant to this public interest topic.’  

167 (4) ‘It was on the way to Fulham in a police car that Mr de Freitas first heard the rape allegation and the circumstances, as related by his daughter. She also told him that a Police Community Support Officer (“PCSO”) called Judith Ryan, whom she knew from the Body Shop, had encouraged her to make a complaint. She showed him a piece of paper on which the words ‘helpless gazelle hunted down by lion’ had been written. She contended that this had been put in her handbag by the Claimant after the alleged incident.’ 

(5) ‘Whilst waiting at Fulham police station Ms de Freitas told her father more. She said that she could not be sure exactly what had happened but said that it was obvious that they had had unprotected sex, which was something that she would never have consented to. She also told him she believed that Mr Economou had drugged her and ‘waterboarded’ her (a reference to the torture technique used in Guantanamo Bay).’ (my emphasis)

173 ‘The Case Summary set out the allegation, as noted by police: that AE had given Ms de Freitas a pill which he claimed was Vitamin C, had then tied her up, “waterboarded” her and had unprotected sex with her. She had said that she wasn’t in control of her body and felt groggy. Asked whether the sex was consensual, she was recorded as saying: “I don’t think so. I was just lying there frozen with fear, I didn’t say yes or no…. I would never have unprotected sex consensually.”’ (my emphasis)

176 ‘Ms de Freitas showed her father a number of extracts. This evidence was not challenged. In his witness statement he said: “I remember that these included the Claimant writing “slip a little surprise in those cocktails. Ha Ha”, “The best way to seduce a woman is to ply her with booze all night, accidentally distract her from the time so she misses her last train”, “And I like the opposite. Someone I can tie up and torment” and another quote to do with “getting a woman’s juices going by brushing her nipples but never to use your hands to do this, it must appear accidental”.” (my emphasis)

178 ‘I understand Mr Economou’s case to be that the hearsay account given in this recording demonstrates that Ms de Freitas was acting at the time in a crazy and evidently untruthful way.  I do not agree. The PCSO (Tulsi) provides a good deal of interpretation and hostile comment, but almost no hard fact. Moreover, this was an officer whose reliability must be in doubt, given that (as is obvious, and not disputed) he was misbehaving in making these observations to Mr Economou.’ (my emphasis and first brackets)

182 ‘This was that the prosecution would not pass the tests set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, and that the defence should encourage the CPS to take over the case and bring it to an end. A point relied on was that Ms de Freitas had never been interviewed under caution as a suspect, and thus had been denied an opportunity to put her case in response before being charged.’ (my emphasis)

186 ‘Mr Barnes put it to Mr de Freitas that this made plain that the police had not even investigated the issue of PCJ. He disputed that, explaining that his understanding was that in the process of conducting a rape investigation the police will come across any evidence of lies or misdirections and, if they discover such evidence they will react to it. So in this instance the fact that they conducted the rape investigation meant they were in a position to see whether there was evidence of PCJ. They found none. I am satisfied that this was his state of mind on that issue at the time.’

187 ‘On 15 October 2013 there was a meeting at the CPS offices to discuss the private prosecution. The police passed on the remainder of their file. In that file was the ABE interview. They were invited to consider investigating the allegation of PCJ. On 13 November 2013 the CPS wrote to HHJ Taylor at Southwark Crown Court to record the outcome: “They have considered their position and confirm their original decision to take no action.” Mr de Freitas became aware of the contents of that letter. His position, under cross-examination, was that this seemed perfectly logical to him.’ (my emphasis)

188 ‘Mr de Freitas accompanied his daughter to the next hearing on 24 January 2014 at which she pleaded not guilty on arraignment ([34] above). The CPS confirmed that they were proceeding on the basis of the original Case Summary, with no new evidence. They were ordered to disclose Ms de Freitas’ ABE interview record, which had not been disclosed in the private prosecution. Mr de Freitas had not been aware of that until this point. The ABE was not in the event disclosed until 2 or 3 April 2014. In the meantime, on 31 March 2014, Ms de Freitas had a conference with her Counsel from which her father brought her home. He observed that she was in sombre mood, finding it very ‘scary’. She was particularly fearful of having to appear as a witness, which she said she felt was like going through the ordeal again.’ (my emphasis) 

191 ‘Ms de Freitas had left a number of notes. It is unnecessary to detail their contents. Mr de Freitas’ interpretation, which was not challenged, was that she was afraid that she would not be believed, and feared bringing shame on her family and other loved ones. Mr de Freitas’ statement gives his view: that if the CPS had complied with their disclosure duties in a timely fashion that advice could have been given sooner and “perhaps the tragic events that followed would have been avoided.”  That evidence was not challenged either. I am satisfied that this is a view that Mr de Freitas sincerely held in the immediate aftermath of his daughter’s death and at all material times after that.’ (my emphasis)

192 ‘Mr de Freitas’ views gained some support from his daughter’s solicitor, who wrote in his email of condolence of 6 April 2014 that he would support any complaint about the conduct of the CPS, who in his opinion had acted terribly.’ (my emphasis) 

193 ‘Between April and August 2014 Mr de Freitas had meetings with Gideon Wagner, formerly a clerk at EBR Attridge, who gave him further information.  Among this was extracts from Ms de Freitas’s psychiatric reports, prepared by a Dr Tim Rogers. Mr de Freitas interpreted these as indicating that the continuing prosecution involved a real risk of completed suicide. It has not been suggested that this interpretation was insincere or even unreasonable.’ (my emphasis)

219 ‘In my judgment this line of argument (putting pressure on the coroner) fails on the facts. I would accept that in principle a decision to whip up media coverage with such an objective would be improper. The line of argument was a proper one. But all depends on the facts. Here, I would accept, Mr de Freitas’ purpose was not to intimidate. I do not believe that he would have seen that as an achievable, let alone proper objective. I accept that what he had in mind was to show the Coroner that the issues he wished to have investigated, and which he (rightly) believed to be matters of public interest were recognised as such by others. I do not consider that to be improper, or illogical.’ (my emphasis and my brackets in first line)

231 ‘On 22 November Ms Wistrich sought further information from DI King about why he had not supported a prosecution of Ms de Freitas. He responded by email on 25 November, saying that “I have always maintained that Eleanor shouldn’t have been prosecuted for PCJ. In this case there are no clear facts that she had falsified her claim of rape. The fact that I authorised no further action for Mr Economou does not imply that the victim had lied about her allegation … We have never doubted as to whether Eleanor’s complaint of rape was genuine or not.”  Ms Wistrich wrote a follow up letter to the DPP on 25 November, posing further questions.’ (my emphasis) 

234 ‘On or about 7 December 2014 Mr de Freitas learned that Mr Economou had written to the Coroner on 3 December 2014 enclosing a USB stick including a recording of the phone call with PCSO Tulsi, claiming he had evidence that Eleanor lied, and asking the coroner to put a stop to the request for a jury inquest. In giving his reasons for this stance, the Claimant pointed out to the Coroner that the witnesses in his private prosecution did not want to appear in court. The Coroner had responded returning the USB stick and stating that the Claimant’s letter was “wholly inappropriate”. This exchange reinforced Mr de Freitas’ view that the CPS’s continuance of the prosecution needed to be fully explored.’ (If I received this information on or around 7th December, I imagine that the CPS also received this information around the same time. It is reasonable to suppose that the coroner would have let Dame Alison know of this correspondence as she had informed him that she was conducting her own investigation dealing with the robustness of the CPS's continuance of this private prosecution, and this admission by Alexander Economou was clearly highly relevant. If this reasoning is correct, why was this admission not disclosed in Dame Alison's Press Release dated 9th December 2014?) brackets and emphasis added

249 ‘(4) he had made what, for a person in his position, were reasonable and responsible investigations into the merits of the case against his daughter; he was not bound to accept that the CPS had made a correct decision, and he had sufficient material on which to challenge that view.’ N.B. see 254 below (my emphasis)

252 'Mr Economou appears to have considered that the evidence he had amassed was conclusive proof that Ms de Freitas had lied. But another view was possible. Mr Economou did not help his own cause by the offensive and bullying manner he adopted in putting his case across to Mr de Freitas.’ (my emphasis)

253 ‘Mr de Freitas published in good faith, for proper purposes, taking aim at the CPS not Mr Economou; and he had a sufficient factual basis for writing what he did.’ (my emphasis)

254 ‘The critical issue is factor (4): whether the belief that Mr de Freitas held was a reasonable one, in the light of the altered evidential picture. Put another way, does the additional information received (from the DPP) change the outcome of the reckoning on that front? In my judgment it does not.’ (my emphasis and brackets)

257 ‘it is relevant to note that Mr de Freitas made a particular point of the fact that he had not seen the evidence gathered (by the DPP), as he had no right to do so.’ (my emphasis and brackets) 

260 ‘Mr Gosden-Hood told me, convincingly, of meetings he had with Mr Economou in which he was told that Mr Economou wished to bankrupt Mr de Freitas’ (and Eleanor)

‘but, as I find, in anger and with elements of vengefulness.’

‘giving insufficient consideration to the other perspectives, indeed the other rights and interests, that demand and deserve consideration.’ (my emphasis and brackets)

Economou v de Freitas 2016 EWHC 1853 (QB) https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/economou-v-de-freitas-2016-ewhc-1853-qb-28-07.pdf

 

Extracts of ‘Arguable Failings of CPS’ filed for Eleanor’s Inquest by

Leslie Thomas KC & Catherine Oborne of Garden Court Chambers

Dated 16th March 2015

2. This document serves to outline a number of those arguable failings. It is to be noted that no disclosure has been received from the CPS [despite a direct request by the family to the DPP] and therefore this list is not exhaustive.

5, One of the most striking, unusual and significant features of the CPS‘s decision to prosecute. Eleanor is the fact that it was not supported by the police.

7. In and of itself the fact that the police were not supportive of the prosecution and still regarded Eleanor’s complaint as one of rape must call into question the correctness of the decision to prosecute her.

9. The CPS’s own guidance makes clear that if there is any question as to whether the original allegation might be true, the evidential test will not be met and a prosecution should not follow: (at all times, Alexander Economou has maintained that all sex between him and Eleanor was consensual)

 

‘The prosecutor must be able to prove that the allegation was in fact false. If there is any question as to whether the original allegation might in fact have been true, then there is not a realistic prospect of conviction, and no charge or perverting the course of justice should be brought.’ 

 

10. When applying the evidential test, the CPS‘s own guidance suggests obtaining information from an Independent Sexual Violence Advisor (ISVA) or the complainant’s GP records etc. Eleanor had contact with an ISVA (Ishah Jawaid) and also her GP records reveal that she had made a recent complaint about the sexual assault to her GP on 31st December 2012 prior to reporting it to the police on 4th January 2013  (and therefore reducing the likelihood that the complaint was malicious).

11. In Eleanor‘s case, the CPS were not in a position to prove that her allegation was, in fact, false. In Eleanor‘s case there was no direct evidence that her account was false e.g. CCTV evidence of the incident. Rather there was circumstantial evidence which was built up from other sources, e.g. the CCTV from the Ann Summers shop and text messages. None of this evidence directly proved that Eleanor’s allegation was a lie.

12. Indeed, there was a possibility that her complaint was or might be true. Certainly it could not be said that there was a realistic prospect of a jury convicting her this is because

12a.  Even the police considered that there was no firm evidence that Eleanor had lied. Email from DI King 27th August 2014

 

‘We met with the CPS during October 2013 and the case was discussed with Sarah Maclaren. The CPS were informed that there was no firm evidence that Eleanor had in fact lied with regards to her allegation and that the allegation of crime was recorded as rape. The file was handed over at this meeting along with a copy of the ABE (videotape of Eleanor’s interview with the Police)(Ms Maclaren wrote to HHJ Taylor on 13th November 2013 confirming this, and that she had viewed the tape)… On 9th November 2013 confirmation was provided to Sarah Maclaren that the police would not be undertaking any prosecution with regards to Eleanor.’

 

12c. The CPS have conceded that there was no full police investigation into the allegation of perverting the course of justice. It appears that Eleanor was never, in fact, interviewed under caution by the police about the prosecution case itself (which is the usual course in police lead investigations which lead to prosecution.) This means that Eleanor was never asked by the police or the CPS to give her response. In those circumstances it cannot be said that the CPS considered the evidential stage fully because they did not consider her defence or potential defence or adequately and because it appears that the evidential investigation in the case was incomplete.

12f. No account was taken of Eleanor‘s GP/mental health records or the views of Eleanor‘s ISVA with regards to whether or not the evidential test was met in this case.

14. It is vital to note that it appears that much of the evidence which the CPS took into account when deciding to prosecute Eleanor was evidence of her behaviour after the alleged assault took place. This decision-making appears to have ignored well established learning that individuals who have been raped may behave in strange and unpredictable ways afterwards. There is a standard direction to this effect to juries in the Crown Court Judge’s Bench Book. In addition, this appears in the Crown Prosecution Service’s Guidance on rape (see Myth 6). All the more so for a young woman who has mental health difficulties and is prone to unpredictable and impulsive behaviour.

15. At the time that the decision was taken to prosecute Eleanor, the CPS were aware that she was a young woman with significant mental health problems. The report of Dr Tim Rogers makes clear that she had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, had been hospitalised and had in the past had periods of suicidal feelings. The report also made clear the chronic and significant risk of completed suicide in those who suffer from major affective disorder.

18. In the CPS guidance on prosecuting mentally disorder defenders, it makes clear that the CPS ought to consider the effects of a prosecution upon an individual’s mental health.

19c. Mr. Economou was arrested and interviewed but was never charged nor were criminal proceedings of any kind issued against him. His name did not become public in relation to the allegation until he himself made contact with the media in relation to this Inquest.

19d. There is no evidence that Eleanor was motivated by malice when making her complaint. Indeed DI King has made clear that the police did not consider that there was any firm evidence to show that she had lied.

19e. Threats had been made to Eleanor by Mr. Economou with regard to the incident. E.g. following an email sent from Mr economy to Eleanor on 21st February 2013, he was issued with an harassment warning notice by the police.

19h. Eleanor‘s account in her ABE interview (videotaped interview with the Police) was vague. At one point she said ‘I don’t know’ whether or not she consented. As a result, it does not appear that this was a woman making a complaint who was intent on ruining the good name of Mr. Economou.

20a. It appears that Eleanor was encouraged/supported to make her rape complaint to the police by PCSO Judith Ryan.

21. The CPS have acknowledged that they failed to serve the crucial evidence in the case (namely Eleanor‘s ABE interview (Videotaped interview with the Police)) on time and in breach of court orders to do so. It was eventually served with less than a week to run before trial. This would inevitably have added to Eleanor‘s stress as the trial approached. The CPS have provided an explanation that this was due to the non-corporation of the police with the prosecution. However, this is directly contradicted by the email of DI King dated 27th August 2014, in which he says that the ABE interview was handed by the police to the CPS in October 2013.

24. Thus far the CPS have refused to provide the family with the CPS file.

25. It is of note that the evidence in the case would have been a matter of public record at the trial (which was due to start 3 days after her death! So why the reticence to provide the family with the CPS file?).

Some emphasis and brackets added

 

Metropolitan Police Service

Misconduct Finding and Outcome                                              02/01/2020

Officer Philip Dial

Details of alleged breach of Standard(s) of Professional Behaviour

Duty and Responsibility

Breach Details: 

On and after 5th January 2013 you failed in your duty to ensure proper recording and investigation of criminal allegation made by Alexander Economou  - Duty and Responsibility

Rationale for Outcome to be recorded below

When PD was presented with a counter allegation of PCJ (perverting the course of justice i.e. Eleanor lying about her rape allegation), he followed convention by referring complainant to front counter. This is corroborated. Other MPS personnel then failed to record the allegation in accordance with their duty. PCJ is an offence which needs to be recorded as a crime only when points to prove are made out. PD was aware that there was no confession within the VRI, indeed even the actual allegation of crime was vague, and that the political sensitivity regarding Rape then (as now) was such that prosecution of a Rape victim without very clear evidence or confession to lying, was very remote. According to the facts known at that time, a reasonable professional assessment could be made that no prosecution of EDF (Eleanor) was likely. This stance was supported by decision-makers within Sapphire (Police Unit dealing with Sexual Assault investigations)  several grades above PD. Whilst PD accepts in hindsight that he could have seized evidence earlier, I do not find that his actions amounted to unacceptable or improper behaviour, and with benefit of hindsight and my own professional experience, cannot see that the outcome of the criminal investigation was altered by actions and decisions taken at the time, irrespective of subsequent CPS conduct. MISCONDUCT NOT PROVEN

Emphasis and brackets added 

Only two outcomes possible: proven or not proven

 

CPS Press Release by Alison Saunders DPP 7th November 2014

"I am very saddened by the tragic death of Eleanor de Freitas. I have asked the team which dealt with this case for a full explanation which addresses all of the de Freitas family's concerns. I appreciate the family's unease which is why I am looking at this personally in order to satisfy myself of the detail surrounding all the stages of the case. I would welcome the opportunity then to meet with Eleanor's family to discuss the case and the law surrounding it.

"Prosecuting cases of perverting the course of justice in connection with an alleged false rape allegation is rare, extremely difficult and always complex and sensitive. This case was one of the most difficult I have seen. To say any more at this stage would be inappropriate until I can answer the de Freitas family's concerns fully and directly."

Emphasis added

 

CPS Press Release by Alison Saunders DPP 9th December 2014

Eleanor de Freitas’ tragic death was just days before she was due to stand trial for perverting the course of justice. The pending inquest will deal with the circumstances surrounding her death and I do not want to interfere with that process. However the case has understandably raised questions about private prosecutions in these types of cases and why the CPS took over and continued this particular case.

Having considered the detail and the issues raised by the family, I am satisfied that the decision making in this case was correct and that it was made in accordance with our policies and guidance. I have separately met with Ms de Freitas' father, David de Freitas, to explain in more detail our decision and the evidence informing it, much of which is personal and sensitive and therefore inappropriate for the CPS to make public. This statement is aimed at explaining the reasoning behind our decision making and not at exploring the evidence in the case, as the allegations concerned have not been properly tested in court. Notwithstanding the correct decision making, this case has highlighted a number of wider issues which I have also discussed with Ms de Freitas' family and I have welcomed their input.

Cases of perverting the course of justice or wasting police time in relation to an alleged false rape claim are rare, but where there is sufficient evidence to show that a false claim may have been made, the potential harm to those affected must be very carefully considered and an appropriate decision made. This case was unprecedented and one of the most complex I have seen in that not only did it require careful consideration of Ms de Freitas' mental health, it was also the subject of a private prosecution without a full police investigation.

Parliament has preserved the right of individuals to bring private prosecutions. This right is limited for some offences by the need for my consent but no such limit applies to cases of perverting the course of justice. When we receive a request to intervene, as we did in this case, we must consider that request and apply the same test, set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, as we would to any other prosecution. If, as here, the case does meet our test we have two options. One is to leave the case in the hands of the private prosecutor, the other is to take the case over and conduct it. Our Legal Guidance states that private prosecutions should be taken over and prosecuted where the offence is serious and also where the case is one "that merits the prosecution being conducted by a public prosecuting authority rather than by a private individual". Given the test was met in this case, had the CPS not taken over proceedings, a private prosecution would have continued. In my view, given the nature of the allegations, that would not have been appropriate.

At this stage it is important to stress that rape is an incredibly serious crime which remains under-reported, partly because victims fear that they will not be believed. Nothing in this unique and tragic case should put anyone else off from making a complaint of rape or sexual assault. The CPS has done a huge amount of work in recent years to ensure that all the very difficult aspects of cases involving allegations of sexual offences where vulnerable parties are involved are considered correctly. Highly skilled rape specialist lawyers deal with all rape and serious sexual offence cases and they are alive to the signs of possible intimidation, humiliation and shame, and self-blaming which can be displayed in behaviours previously thought as potentially undermining to some allegations of rape. As a culmination of almost four years' work raising awareness of the sensitivities and issues surrounding cases involving allegedly false rape claims, we are also in the process of updating our guidance on prosecuting cases of Perverting the Course of Justice where it is alleged a false claim has been made.

However, the evidence in this case was strong and having considered it in light of all of our knowledge and guidance on prosecuting sexual offences and allegedly false rape claims, it is clear there was sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction for perverting the course of justice. This was evidence including text messages and CCTV footage that directly contradicted the account Ms de Freitas gave to the police. This was not assumption based on her behaviour or actions which fall into myths and stereotypes about how alleged rape victims should behave. It was on this basis that we concluded that there was a realistic prospect of proving that the rape allegation made by Ms de Freitas was false, and there was also a strong public interest in prosecuting due to the seriousness of the alleged offence which was maintained by the defendant for some time and which led to the arrest of an individual.

I must remind everyone that no case has been proved against Ms de Freitas and so no conclusions can be made or stated as fact. Indeed the test that we must satisfy to bring a case to court - that it has a realistic prospect of conviction - is very different to the higher test of being sure of a persons guilt beyond reasonable doubt which a jury must decide upon.

I am satisfied that prosecutors had taken the necessary steps in assuring themselves that Ms de Freitas' mental health had been properly considered. This was in the form of a very detailed report by a consultant forensic psychiatrist instructed by Ms de Freitas' legal team, who also took into account the views of Ms de Freitas' consultant psychiatrist. That medical assessment was clear. The doctor instructed by Ms de Freitas' legal representative recommended that she was aware of the implications of making a false allegation, as she was alleged to have done, and was fit to stand trial. We do not take on these kinds of prosecutions lightly, but the medical evidence provided to us could not justify dropping such a serious case. No further representations were made to us as to Ms de Freitas' health, which would of course have been carefully considered.

There has been speculation that the police did not agree with the prosecution for various reasons. However, the police 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. They were therefore not in a position to form a view on whether there was sufficient evidence to prosecute.

Bringing such a prosecution without the support of the police from the outset is extremely unusual. However police engagement should have been secured by the CPS at a far earlier stage than did in fact happen when a police disclosure officer was provided in March 2014. Although the majority of the material was provided to the defence, Ms de Freitas' police interview was only provided at a late stage.

If the CPS is invited to consider a private prosecution and the conclusion is reached that either the evidential or the public interest test is not met then we will, of course, take over the case and discontinue it. If, on the other hand, both these tests are met the question remains whether the prosecution should be conducted by the CPS or by the private prosecutor. As a result of this case, I intend to make it clear to prosecutors that, where the allegation in question arises out of an alleged false claim of rape, it would be an exceptional course for it to be left in the hands of the private prosecutor.

I have expressed my very personal and heartfelt sympathies to Ms de Freitas' family and I hope that I have been able to explain the actions of the CPS to them, although I know that will be little comfort for the terrible and tragic loss of their daughter.

Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions

Emphasis added

 

In Dame Alison's Press Release dated 7th November 2014, she confirmed that she would not be commenting any further on this case until after she had explained what she considered to be the CPS's case to the de Freitas family. This explanation was given on 20th November 2014. Why did it take almost 3 weeks for Dame Allison to issue this explanation in her second press release dated 9th December 2014. Was she considering the point I make regarding further exculpatory evidence such as the evidence that I speculate on regarding para 234 of the Libel Judgment above? Was it something else? A Full Public Inquiry would discover this.

 

Accountability 

In any Public Inquiry that is ordered, I do hope that concerted consideration will be given to accountability of the CPS and the various agencies that I have engaged with who have frustrated this. 

I am unable to be as frank as I would like due to the Gagging Order that I refer to. Both the CPS and the Attorney General's Office will have you believe that I am not under a Gagging Order in the sense of a Weinstein-style Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) which have justifiably discredited, NDAs are now illegal in certain circumstances, or simply unenforceable. I have signed a Confidentiality Undertaking (CU). If I break this CU, it could be viewed as a contempt of court and I could be fined, imprisoned or both. 

Whilst a CU is not the same as a NDA, there are some worrying parallels involved. These have made NDAs unacceptable and should, therefore, make CUs similarly unacceptable. Like a signatory to an NDA, I did not volunteer to sign the agreement. The party I was dealing with was extremely powerful, so there is a huge inequality of arms. The third similarity is that the parties being asked to sign these agreements are vulnerable. I was a grieving father desperately looking for answers where I knew the CPS was wrong, and I was susceptible to agreeing to anything that would shed light where there was darkness. 

The big difference between an NDA and a CU is that the party being asked to sign an NDA knows all about what is being covered up. I only discovered what was being covered up after I had signed the CU. Had I known what was being covered up, I would not have signed it. I believe this calls for at least the same protections for those signing CUs as applies (or being considered) to those signing NDAs – or even greater protections. 

Whilst I did have legal advice, they could not advise me as they do not have expertise in that area and had not seen this document, I term NMAN. We only became aware of NMAN when Dame Alison Saunders referred to it in her rationale to Sir Jeremy Wright when we were asking for a Full Public Inquiry into the CPS’s continuance of Alexander Economou’s private prosecution of Eleanor. Unsurprisingly, Dame Alison did not think a Public Inquiry was necessary. We thought we should be allowed to see NMAN as she was relying on it.  Neither the CPS nor the AGO advised me to seek advice from any specialist and I certainly did not sign anything where I claimed to have received such advice. Obviously, no professional could give such advice without seeing NMAN beforehand, and this might explain why I was not encouraged to seek such advice.

We did make a complaint on a matter where we considered there was an egregious misdirection of the coroner by the CPS. We made a complaint using the CPS's own complaints procedure. Unsurprisingly, the CPS did not accept our complaint. We then referred the complaint to the Independent Assessor of CPS complaints. He repackaged our complaint without our knowledge, or agreement, and then dismissed what he had repackaged. Until the Gagging Order is lifted, I cannot go into any further detail. There are other failings that would merit further complaints, but it appeared to us that further use of this procedure would be pointless. 

I considered that NMAN provided evidence of gross professional misconduct. Consequently, I sought permission from both Michael Ellis and Victoria Prentis who were both Attorneys General at the time, to vary the Gagging Order so that I could consult Leading Counsel about my concerns that NMAN provided evidence of gross professional misconduct. It must be obvious that there are no circumstances in which the existence of gross professional misconducted is acceptable. This is particularly true in the giving of any kind of advice. 

This Leading Counsel specialises in professional misconduct and is on the Centre for Women’s Justice panel for this speciality. He would be aware of any relevant concerns regarding client/attorney privilege. He was prepared to sign any undertaking that was reasonably required, and this was made clear. The Attorney General is the most senior member of the Bar. As such it falls to the Attorney General to demonstrate the highest standards by example. Nevertheless, both Attorneys General refused to grant this simple variation, Michael Ellis via his letter dated 11th October 2022 and Victoria Prentis via her letter dated 18th January 2023.

As the individuals I considered responsible for this gross professional misconduct are regulated by the two front-line regulators: the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and the Bar Standards Board (BSB), I contacted these regulators about this misconduct. In pursuing evidence, both the SRA & BSB can order disclosure of documents relevant to their investigation, so they would not be hampered by my CU. Having drawn blanks there, I contacted the overarching regulator for those giving legal advice: the Legal Services Board (LSB), and drew another blank there. 

The common theme for all three regulators was that the onus was on me to come up with evidence equivalent to the criminal standard of guilt before they would take any action I considered that these regulators were in a better position to obtain this than I was. I paste below what I wrote to the SRA on 10th August 2023 which makes this point clear:=

‘Neither members of the public nor the Press have the powers to oblige any cooperation from solicitors at this initial stage or at the interview under caution stage - yet the SRA does. Under the general system of regulation in this country, all those who are regulated have an obligation of candour and cooperation with their regulators’

As can be seen from the extract of the Metropolitan Police Misconduct Finding and Outcome above, failure to record and investigate an allegation is sanctionable professional misconduct. With these three regulators, who police the conduct of legal professionals, failure to record and investigate an allegation is the accepted norm.