CPS Raises Concerns Over Met Police Handling of Woman’s Rape and Strangulation Allegations Against Prominent Lawyer

By Tony O’Reilly-

Concerns have been raised at the highest levels of the Crown Prosecution Service over the Metropolitan Police’s handling of domestic abuse allegations after officers declined to pursue claims that a prominent lawyer strangled and raped a woman during what police later described as a “toxic” relationship.

The case has triggered renewed scrutiny of how allegations involving coercive sexual violence are assessed by frontline investigators, particularly in cases where victims describe dissociation, coercion or fear rather than overt physical resistance.

The complainant, referred to as “MH”, accused the lawyer of rape, coercive behaviour and non-fatal strangulation during a relationship she says began after he contacted her unexpectedly through LinkedIn. Despite interviewing the suspect, the Metropolitan Police decided not to refer the matter to the Crown Prosecution Service for charging advice.

Instead, officers informed MH that while she had provided “some good evidence”, the case would face difficulties in court because she had at one point described herself as consenting while later saying she had dissociated during sexual encounters.

Police also concluded that the relationship did not meet the threshold for charges relating to controlling and coercive behaviour, despite acknowledging that the relationship had been “toxic” and “did not have a positive outcome”.

The handling of the strangulation allegation has since become a particular source of controversy after a senior CPS prosecutor indicated that police may not have correctly applied prosecutorial guidance.

According to correspondence seen by MH, Kate Brown, who also serves as Chief Prosecutor for Wessex, expressed concern that current CPS guidance on strangulation offences “may not be being correctly applied”.

Brown subsequently raised the issue with senior Metropolitan Police officers responsible for rape and serious sexual offence investigations and contacted the force’s domestic abuse lead to ensure officers were reminded of CPS guidance surrounding strangulation cases.

The intervention has intensified concerns among campaigners and legal observers who argue that police and prosecutors continue to misunderstand the dynamics of abusive relationships and sexual violence, particularly where victims’ accounts do not fit outdated expectations of how “ideal victims” behave.

MH, a former model, told investigators that the lawyer first approached her by sending what she described as a random message through LinkedIn introducing himself. According to her account, their communications quickly became personal.

“Over a phone call he found out that I was not in contact with any of my family and that I had been in rehab,” she said.

She alleges that the lawyer later sent her a lengthy message outlining what he described as the terms of a mentoring relationship.

“I was never really sure what his mentoring me meant,” she said. “He kept nagging me for photos of myself.”

MH claims the relationship soon became sexual and coercive. She told police the lawyer visited her flat and unexpectedly undressed her before initiating sex.

“I remember it being very aggressive,” she said. “Within seconds he had his hand over my neck.”

She later alleged another sexual encounter occurred after she had explicitly indicated she was not willing to engage in sexual activity.

“I had told him I was not up for anything,” she said.

Despite this, sexual activity allegedly continued. The relationship went on for some time afterward before MH says she ultimately ended contact by text message.

Police later informed her that the allegations would not proceed further.

In explaining the decision, officers said a charge of non-fatal strangulation would be difficult because it was “unclear if any airway was restricted during this period” and because the act “appears… made as part of a sexual practise”.

The officer added: “Although you did not like nor did not want this, it does not meet the charge threshold due to the restrictive breathing issue.”

Investigators also cited the suspect’s denial of the allegations, the absence of photographs or medical records documenting injuries, and the fact that the lawyer had no prior convictions or arrests for violence.

But critics say aspects of that reasoning appear inconsistent with the modern legal understanding of strangulation offences and domestic abuse dynamics.

Non-fatal strangulation became a standalone criminal offence in England and Wales in 2022 amid growing recognition that strangulation is one of the clearest high-risk indicators in abusive relationships. Domestic violence specialists have repeatedly warned that victims subjected to strangulation face significantly increased risks of future serious violence and homicide.

Importantly, prosecutors and campaigners have stressed that visible injury is often absent in strangulation cases. Medical evidence suggests many victims display little or no external bruising despite suffering potentially serious internal harm.

That reality formed part of a wider CPS effort announced in 2025 to strengthen prosecutions involving strangulation offences.

Kate Brown publicly stated at the time that prosecutors would not be “deterred by the lack of injury” when assessing such allegations, reflecting growing institutional awareness that traditional assumptions about evidence in violent abuse cases are often flawed.

Against that background, the Metropolitan Police’s apparent reliance on uncertainty over airway restriction and absence of visible injuries has prompted questions about whether officers properly understood the offence or applied current prosecutorial guidance.

The case also raises broader concerns about how police interpret consent in situations involving trauma responses such as dissociation.

Experts in sexual violence have long warned that victims may freeze, psychologically detach or comply during assaults due to fear, shock or trauma. Such reactions can later complicate criminal investigations when survivors struggle to describe events in ways that fit conventional expectations of resistance.

Campaigners argue that references to MH having “at one point” described herself as consenting while later saying she was dissociating risk reflecting outdated assumptions about how victims experience coercive sexual encounters.

The issue of coercive control has also become increasingly central to domestic abuse law in recent years. The offence was introduced to recognise patterns of manipulation, intimidation and domination that may not always involve overt physical violence but can nevertheless profoundly affect victims’ autonomy and wellbeing.

Critics say authorities still too often approach domestic abuse through isolated incidents rather than examining broader behavioural patterns and power imbalances.

In MH’s case, police acknowledged that the relationship was “toxic”, yet concluded it did not meet the threshold for coercive and controlling behaviour.

For campaigners, that conclusion may intensify concerns about whether coercive abuse is being interpreted too narrowly by investigators.

The fact that the suspect is a prominent lawyer who was previously sanctioned by his professional regulator over separate allegations of sexual misconduct has added another layer of public interest to the case. While those prior matters were unrelated, critics argue they raise legitimate questions about institutional accountability and risk assessment.

No criminal court has found the lawyer guilty of any offence, and he denies the allegations made by MH. Nevertheless, the controversy arrives at a time of sustained pressure on the criminal justice system over low prosecution rates in rape and domestic abuse cases.

Successive government reviews have identified deep mistrust among victims who often feel discouraged from reporting offences due to fears they will not be believed or that cases will be dropped before reaching court.

Statistics from England and Wales continue to show substantial attrition rates in rape investigations, with many complaints never resulting in charges.

Victims’ advocates say the consequences can be devastating, particularly where complainants already face vulnerabilities linked to trauma, addiction recovery, isolation or mental health struggles.

MH’s account that the lawyer learned early in their interactions that she was estranged from family and had previously been in rehab is likely to intensify debate about vulnerability and power dynamics in abusive relationships.

Domestic abuse specialists frequently warn that perpetrators may target individuals experiencing emotional isolation or instability because they are easier to manipulate or less likely to be believed.

The CPS intervention in this case may therefore prove significant beyond the immediate allegations themselves. By formally raising concerns with senior Metropolitan Police officers, prosecutors appear to be signalling anxiety about whether frontline officers are fully implementing updated guidance in serious domestic abuse and strangulation investigations.

The case reflects a wider institutional problem in which modern legal reforms aimed at recognising coercive abuse have not always translated into consistent operational practice.

The Metropolitan Police has faced repeated criticism in recent years over its handling of violence against women and girls, with multiple reviews highlighting cultural and investigative failings within the force.

Against that backdrop, decisions involving allegations of rape, coercive control and strangulation are likely to attract heightened public scrutiny.

The dispute for MH is not primarily about policy debates or institutional reform but about the deeply personal experience of feeling unheard.

Her allegations may never be tested in court. No charges have been brought. But the concerns now raised by senior CPS figures suggest the questions surrounding how the case was handled are far from resolved.