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:
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:
Find this quote here, in the DPP's statement
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. |