By Gabriel Princewill-
The Crown Prosecution Service(CPS) believed Caroline Flack intentionally assaulted her boyfriend, Lewis Burton, The Eye Of Media.Com can reveal.
Insiders at the Metropolitan police have anonymously told this publication following our relentless probe, that neither the police nor the CPS believed the attack on Caroline Flack’s boyfriend to be an accident.
Contrary to the version of account given by the late former presenter, and re-iterated by Flack’s mother, the officer who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told this publication that on the balance of probability, the injuries sustained by Barton was not the result of an accidental attack.
He added that the charges eventually issued by the Crown prosecution Service(CPS) provided confirmation to the ‘improbable chances’ that the assault was accidental.
‘One has to remember that the officers on the scene would have spoken to both Caroline Flack and her boyfriend, and would have been able to conclude whether they believed within reason that there was a low or high probability that the attack was accidental.
‘Caroline Flack’s mood and anger in response to the attack that led to her boyfriend’s injury would have been evaluated, as well as the fact Mr. Burton himself at the time believed it to be intentional, which is why he called police.
‘Police always take into account the circumstances of a report made, the individuals concerned, and the perception of the victim, when deciding how to treat an alleged assault.
‘The original decision of the CPS to issue a caution would have been based on a range of factors, and it really is a matter for them to comment on’.
The officer said he could not comment on the content of the appeal or why it was not recorded in line with protocol.
This publication has further scrutinised the matter ever since the Independent Police Complaint Commission(IOPC) ordered a re-investigation into the actions of the officer who appealed the decision, citing new information.
Last month, The IOPC decided the majority of the matters had previously been dealt with and no further action was required,” the Met said in an official statement at the time .
“The IOPC returned one aspect of the complaint back to the Met’s Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) to consider further.
“This relates to the actions of officers in appealing an initial decision by the Crown Prosecution Service not to charge Ms Flack, and because new witness evidence may be available.
“DPS officers are now making further enquiries in relation to this.”
The IOPC did not say what the new witness evidence may be, and itself appears to have failed to competently oversee the process of its own direction, giving no time line to its stipulated investigation, and not instructing any immediate transparency on the matter.
Whilst many times effective in ensuring accountability, its regulatory oversight over the Met’s workings and obligations seem inept on this occasion, leaving the public remain in the dark on a matter that could be of important precedent.
The police watchdog’s usually eloquent press spokesperson, Roger Jasper, last week dropped the phone when he couldn’t handle the heat from our suggestion that the IOPC was failing in the accountability department.
He argued that the matter would have remained hidden if not for the IOPC, conveniently overlooking the fact the regulator had arguably responded to complaints from Flack’s family, but so far have not substantively achieved any accountability.
Most people find it incredulous that no record of the appeal made by the Met to the CPS exists, yet no stipulated deadline has been set to what really ought to be a straightforward investigation.
Assault By Beating
Charges of assault by beating against Flack followed an ostensibly compelling communication from a police officer to the CPS, calling for the original caution issued to be overturned in light of what was deemed ‘persuasive evidence’ that the assault was not accidental as claimed.
Oddly, no record of the appeal was made by the Metropolitan Police, and until proven otherwise, the declaration of an investigation may be more rhetoric than substance.
Recent revelations surrounding the Crown Prosecution Service’s (CPS) handling of Caroline Flack’s assault case have shed new light on the decision-making process that led to the late television presenter being charged with assault by beating.
It raises fresh questions as to why the CPS initially issued the television presenter with a caution, only to perform a spectacular U turn when the police appealed the caution.
This revelation contradicts earlier perceptions that Flack’s actions may have been unintentional or incidental, casting doubt on the initial assumptions surrounding the case.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/shutterstock_editorial_10326194aa-2000-5f1df87832044bef81d8605fa49d2e2c.jpg)
Tragic: Beautiful Caroline Flack committed suicide after learning she would be charged with assault after initially being cautioned.
The CPS’s determination that the incident was not accidental suggests an assessment of Flack’s conduct and its potential criminal implications following a persuasive appeal from a Metropolitan Police officer.
While the precise details of the CPS’s assessment remain undisclosed, the latest revelation challenges earlier narratives that characterized the incident as a misunderstanding or momentary lapse in judgment.
Instead, it suggests a more nuanced understanding of Flack’s actions and their legal implications.
Also integral to an objective inquiry about the anomaly in question may be the consistency and coherence of the legal process, as well as the factors that influenced the CPS’s decision-making in this particular case.
The disclosure also highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability in high-profile legal proceedings.
The failure of both the CPS and the police to publicly disclose the formal basis for the transition from a caution to a charging decision has fuelled speculation and conjecture about the events leading up to Flack’s tragic demise.
It also questions both the autonomy of the CPS and the integrity of a process characterised by opaque moves.
Flack was understandably distressed about the change of stance from the CPS over the incident at the time.
Also crucial is whether Ms Flack was afforded an opportunity to challenge the appeal from the police.
Disappointingly, neither the Met nor the CPS has confirmed this issue. In the absence of the underlying reasons behind the eventual charging decision, it is impossible to determine whether a challenge to the original appeal would have made any difference,
Yet, for the sake of both accountability and precedence, it is worth establishing whether defendants can challenge the appeal of the police to the CPS, before and/or after a charging decision, and whether Caroline Flack was afforded such an opportunity.
The provision of clarity on the CPS’s assessment of Flack’s actions would help address lingering doubts and concerns about the fairness and impartiality of the legal process.
Our sincerest condolences are with the family of Caroline Flack who have suffered a great loss amid a distastefully incoherent process.
A CPS Spokesperson told The Eye Of Media.Com: ‘The police appealed the initial decision, which they have a right to do under the DPP’s guidance on charging.
‘Following this, it was further considered by a legal manager and a decision was made to authorise charges
“Our thoughts remain with the family of Caroline Flack for their tragic loss.”