Wednesday, 6 November 2024

High Court ruled "no arguable failings" by CPS in Eleanor de Freitas case.

For some very strange reason David de Freitas and his feminist campaigners keep lobbying special interest groups to write to the Attorney General for an enquiry into Ms de Freitas death - 10 years on - in 2024.

But the reality is, this has already happened.

The de Freitas family were given the opportunity to present evidence to show wrongdoing at the High Court, but the reality there was none. There was not a speck of dust of evidence to show that there was even an arguable case against the CPS (or me), let alone a finding of wrongdoing - a judge looked at the submissions and made a ruling as detailed above.

On 9th March 2016, Mr Justice Holroyde sitting at the High Court in London denied a Judicial Review against a decision by the coroner to not hold a full enquiry into Ms de Freitas death - because there was no arguable case.

Paragraph 5 of the order says:

"The CPS here had medical evidence, including that which was relied on by those representing the deceased, which did not identify any real or immediate risk to life. No representations were made to the CPS, in the days immediately proceeding her death, to the effect that her condition was worsening and that the prosecution was endangering her life. In those circumstances it is not arguable that there was any such beach of an obligation as is alleged in this ground".

The Order can be found on pages 3 and 4 of this pdf 

https://alexander-economou.docdroid.com/F59eyl5/2016331-permission-for-a-jr-refused-pdf#page=3


This also concurs with the Director of Public Prosecutions who has also said in her statement that:


"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".

Full statement off DPP found here:

https://blog.cps.gov.uk/2014/12/statement-from-the-director-of-public-prosecutions-on-eleanor-de-freitas.html


Even at the very early stages of the prosecution, myself and my lawyers took the public interest stage very seriously. 

Please find  letter from my lawyers to Ms de Freitas lawyers in 2013, saying that her mental health was paramount importance, when considering the public interest of the prosecution.

https://alexander-economou.docdroid.com/tFIrH7s/2013915-emm-considering-edf-mental-health-pdf

Three months later, the case was taken over by the CPS, in December 2013, and that decision to continue the prosecution was taken by:

Sarah Maclaren - Head of RASSO (Rape and serious sexual assault unit at the CPS)

Jenny Hopkins - Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor for London

Alison Levitt QC - Legal adviser to the DPP at the time.

It's crucial to understand that the decision to prosecute Ms. de Freitas was made by a group of highly experienced lawyers, who were senior officials within the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), and experts on rape cases, who meticulously examined the evidence and firmly believed that Ms. de Freitas had lied. 

Please find letters from the CPS, confirming of all of this, here:

https://alexander-economou.docdroid.com/SBOQzz6/2013-r-v-eleanor-de-freitas-cps-letters-pdf

They also carefully considered her mental health before concluding that the prosecution should proceed. This case was then reviewed, a year later in 2014, by Alison Saunders, the then Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), who, after assessing all the facts, issued a statement supporting the CPS's decision.

Here, we have a clear example of women (not men) at the highest levels of the CPS and the DPP, all of whom found the evidence against Ms. de Freitas compelling enough to warrant prosecution, and believed that she lied about being raped. There was no cover up, no misogyny, or anything thing like that.


Then the Attorney General made his own statement which can be found here in 2018: 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/no-independent-inquiry-into-the-prosecution-of-eleanor-de-freitas


To summarise:

According to David de Freitas, and his campaigners, the following people are wrong:

  • Three high ranking female officials at the CPS who looked at every document of the prosecution.
  • The DPP Alison Saunders who started her tenancy in 2014,  then looked to see what had happened before she was DPP - when the case was taken over in 2013.
  • The High Court judge Mr Justice Holryde
  • And the Attorney General


The only people that David de Freitas (and his feminist entourage) aligns themselves with are the following:

  • Ms de Freitas
  • Detective Inspector DI King, who was found guilty of misconduct for refusing to investigate the case against Ms de Freitas and the police had to pay me £10,000 for his misconduct. See here:  

https://www.accused.blog/2019/12/corrupt-police-officer-julian-king.html

and here:

https://www.accused.blog/2018/08/metropolitan-police-pay-compensation.html


Further, it must be empathised that the police did not see all the evidence, in the case against Ms de Freitas because they refused to investigate. The DPP said in her statement (back in 2014) the following concerning the police:

"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".

Find this quote here, in the DPP's statement

https://blog.cps.gov.uk/2014/12/statement-from-the-director-of-public-prosecutions-on-eleanor-de-freitas.html


Conclusion:

Back in November 2014, Mr de Freitas brought this story to the press saying there was "no evidence" his daughter lied, and even now, ten years later, his lies are ongoing. 

The only reason this blog exists is to counter the lies and misrepresentations of David de Freitas and his fellow campaigners Lisa Avalos, Harriet Wistrich and others on the same bandwagon of misinformation. I would much rather have no blog, but this saga of misinformation seems to be never endling. 

And thus the blog is updated and kept online. Not my choice, more of necessity, as no one else is going to be publishing the truth, or fight my corner. 

Royal Courts of Justice, London, England.