By Gabriel Princewill-
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is facing mounting scrutiny over its decision to initially recommend a caution for TV presenter Caroline Flack who had allegedly assaulted her boyfriend, before later overturning it in response to an appeal from the Metropolitan Police.
The Eye Of Media.Com has made a few attempts to communicate with both the CPS and the Metropolitan Police for over a week ever since the latter was asked to revisit its investigation into its appeal against the CPS’s original caution issued to Caroline Flack before the former star committed suicide.
Flack. a naturally beautiful and engaging television celebrity, was supposedly acting on impulse to an unedifying discovery she made when she went through the mobile phone of her then boyfriend, Lewis Burton, whilst he was asleep.
The late television presenter concluded from text messages she had perused, that Burton had been cheating on her, and hit him with a lamp as he slept on the bed they shared.
Cops who attended the scene likened it to a horror movie with ‘blood everywhere’. Her supposed actions on the face of it appears to have met the threshold for assault, making the caution she was given inexplicable.
However, subsequent accounts indicated that the pool of blood that soaked the bed she shared with her boyfriend had come from her cutting her own wrists in reaction to the police being called after she supposedly hit Burton with a lamp.
Flack insisted the stated assault was accidental and not intended to harm the man she loved but was at the time angry with.
Lawyers spoken to by this publication have all shied away from going on record on this emotive topic, likely due to the sensitivity and controversy the story potentially evokes.
Yet, it is greatly in the public interest and for the sake of establishing robust and reliable precedents that this publication has undertaking a comprehensive and ongoing investigation into the matter.
The CPS is an important pillar of the British justice system, making its workings of great importance to the British public. The grounds on which it makes charging decisions is unarguably vital, notwithstanding the opportunity for defendants to subsequently avail themselves in court following a trial.
Evidential Test
All cases presented to the CPS must meet the evidential test of the code before a charging decision is imposed.
Legal experts say that in order to receive a caution for assault the injuries that have been caused will have to be low level, such as minor cutting and/or some bruising, but it cannot excessive.
“Caroline’s version of events was that she had tapped Mr Burton on the head, firstly on the leg to wake him up, then in a flicking gesture made contact with his head at a time when she still had her phone in her hand.
The Crown Prosecution Service’s legal manager subsequently came to the view that a caution was not an appropriate disposal, and that there was sufficient evidence – and it was in the public interest – to authorise a charge of assault by beating.
The burning question is why The CPS initially authorised a caution only to yield to a police appeal? If they believed the injuries sustained by her boyfriend to have been accidental, why reverse the decision?
Representatives of The CPS told The Eye Of Media.Com that the option of an appeal is open to the police, following a CPS charging decision, but refused to engage on the grounds on which it reversed its original decision.
The Code clarifies that a realistic prospect of conviction means “an objective, impartial and reasonable jury, bench of magistrates or a judge hearing a case alone, properly directed and acting in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged.”
Prosecutors and police decision makers are expected to be able to explain why it “is more likely than not” that the court will convict, and cases that do not pass the evidential stage must not proceed, no matter how serious or sensitive.
Under the CPS guidelines, ‘the Inspector or officer of a higher rank) must consider the relevant case material, and the rationale for the prosecutors’ decision, before initiating an escalation process(appeal).
It includes the requirement that the grounds for the appeal is recorded and explanation why the Inspector (or officer of higher rank) believes that the prosecutors’ decision is wrong by reference to the specific facts of the case and the sufficiency of evidence under the Full Code Test or Threshold Test.
Scrutiny
The scrutiny of this publication arose after the Independent Police Commission(IOPC) asked the Met to re-investigate one aspect of the complaint from Flack’s family in relation to why the police failed to record its reason for appealing the decision to issue a caution to the late former Love Island presenter.
When asked why the IOPC made its latest referral for a re-investigation, a representative of the police watchdog eloquently told this publication that the purpose of its latest referral was in light of new evidence and the fact the Metropolitan police did not record its reasons for making the appeal.
”In light of new evidence and the fact the Met did not record its reasons for an appeal, we returned one aspect of the complaint made against the police to investigate the new witness and determine whether there may be a need to take a further statement in relation to this, the spokesperson said.
‘The Met did not have a system in place at the time to make a record, which raised questions as to why this was the case.
‘We deemed it necessary for the Met to demonstrate that its actions in appealing the decision was a legitimate and proportionate response. Our decision has no bearing on whether the eventual decision of the CPS was correct or not”.
Caroline Flack had been informed of the original caution from the CPS before it overturned its original decision following an appeal from the police officer in question.
Also curious is why the officer retired shortly after, and why the Met did not record its reasons for the appeal remains a mystery.
Mental Health
Experts and analysts believe the detrimental U turn heavily impacted the mental health of the late television presenter, and led to her committing suicide.
Caroline Flack was already undergoing worrying mental health issues, and was said to handle public criticism badly.
Yet the fact her boyfriend was not prepared to take the case further is seen as weakening the case for prosecution, but what the police made of Mr Burton’s refusal to press charges is not publicly known.
The Metropolitan police declined to tell this publication its reason for failing to record why it appealed the CPS’s decision, stating it had nothing further to add to its original statement”.
An intuitive explanation for the appeal lies in the obvious suspicion that favouritism underlay the Crown’s decision not to prosecute Flack because she was a household name.
The CPS has expressly denied this suspected reason to The Eye Of Media, but has declined to provide a formal explanation of its decision to caution Flack , only to later reverse its decision.
The CPS last week at the beginning of our investigation into the matter promised to explain its questionable decision to caution Flack who assaulted her then boyfriend, Lewis Burton, by attacking him with a lamp whilst he was asleep.
She had been reacting to a discovery that he was cheating on her by texting other women when she went through his mobile phone.
The silence has raised concerns about the transparency and consistency of the legal process, particularly in high-profile cases like Flack’s, and stresses the need for accountability to maintain public trust.
No time line has been set for the Met’s investigation, raising curious questions about transparency in this murky and sensitive matter.
Unlike many scandalous reports in the past engulfing the Metropolitan Police, the substantive issue here appears to revolve around process than it does corruption.
Yet, the potential issue of corruption that arises here is the level of influence police officers can have on the CPS, an institution meant to be independent of the police, and committed to justice and the hallowed principle of the rule of law in the interest of the British public.
‘If Caroline Flack, who was no legal expert, was told she was to be cautioned, only to discover that an officer had circumvented the decision, this would have unarguably affected her mental health at the time.
On top of her grievance with her cheating boyfriend, the seeming corruption from a police officer proved too much for her to bear.
With the matter now revisited, there still lies a distasteful level of evasiveness going on.
The IOPC confirmed to this publication that the Met has verbalised the reasons to the Flack family, yet the police is oddly refusing to make those reasons public.
Clean
The Crown Prosecution needs to come clean on this matter and explain itself. Why were exceptional treatment afforded to Caroline Flack at the time? Why did the police officer in question make no record of their appeal, and why did he resign shortly after?
What is this new evidence, and when will the public be fully informed about its findings? So many questions with no answers characterises this matter.
Something fishy and dodgy appears to be going on, and someone needs to come clean!
Maintaining transparency and accountability in the legal process is essential to upholding public confidence in the justice system.
Any perception of preferential treatment or undue influence undermines the integrity of the legal process and erodes trust in its outcomes.
In the case of Caroline Flack, it is unclear whether the incontrovertible facts will ever be publicly known.