Reality TV claims another victim. RIP Caroline Flack

[steveindenmark]

I would suggest the legal system is more complicit in her death than reality tv.

Yes, I think you have a point. Her boyfriend did not want to support the prosecution, but the cps wanted to run with it. Some clerk wanted to put a celebrity through the ringer. There are times when the CPS should take control and prosecute people when the complaint is withdrawn. This does not look like one of them.

 

[Beebo]

The press are rightly coming in for criticism.
but this is a classic case of a celebrity loving the positive press attention but not the negative stuff.
fame is a double edged sword and the tabloid press can break you just as easily as make you.

ITV are also getting criticism for their duty of care to participants. Love Island now has 3 suicides but is still on the TV. Jeremy Kyle has one and was cancelled.

 

[Blue Hills]

Yes, I think you have a point. Her boyfriend did not want to support the prosecution, but the cps wanted to run with it. Some clerk wanted to put a celebrity through the ringer. There are times when the CPS should take control and prosecute people when the complaint is withdrawn. This does not look like one of them.

I'd check out palerider's post above. He knows a lot about these things. There was also a very experienced legal bod on the bbc this morning who felt the CPS conduct had been normal.
Imagine the outcry, especially on here, if a domestic abuse case with an apparent female victim had been dropped because of concern for an alleged male perpetrator.
Of course it's not altogether unexpected that some tabloids are blaming the cps.
And not altogether unexpected that SOME online folk/twitterati etc are blaming the tabloids, the cps etc. I wonder why?
Rest in peace.

 

[Pale Rider]

If I thought the CPS had treated her differently or against the public policy they are obliged to folIow, I would say so.

Seems my guess - from experience - they had body worn footage was correct.

All I would say is the police and CPS have been down this path so many times they probably don't give it a great deal of consideration.

It's big licks for the defendant, particularly this defendant, but routine, low level, and mundane for the CPS.

Apart from the defendant's celebrity status, but most people would support the notion of us all being equal before the law.

 

[kingrollo]

I remember as a younger man me and my mates got into skirmish coming out from a nightclub in Worcester - to cut a long story short my mate got whacked around the head with a sock full of snooker balls - police came grabbed the culprit and asked my mate if he wanted to press charges - he said no ? but in light of the CF case - it shouldn't have been an option

 

[steveindenmark]

I'd check out palerider's post above. He knows a lot about these things. There was also a very experienced legal bod on the bbc this morning who felt the CPS conduct had been normal.
Imagine the outcry, especially on here, if a domestic abuse case with an apparent female victim had been dropped because of concern for an alleged male perpetrator.
Of course it's not altogether unexpected that some tabloids are blaming the cps.
And not altogether unexpected that SOME online folk/twitterati etc are blaming the tabloids, the cps etc. I wonder why?
Rest in peace.

The boyfriend refused to support the prosecution. He was the victim. It is not unusual at all for the CPS not to prosecute when the victim withdraws their complaint. Unless she had a history of violence. I cannot see the need for prosecuting her. Its only my opinion. I could not find the post you referred to.

 

[Pale Rider]

I remember as a younger man me and my mates got into skirmish coming out from a nightclub in Worcester - to cut a long story short my mate got whacked around the head with a sock full of snooker balls - police came grabbed the culprit and asked my mate if he wanted to press charges - he said no ? but in light of the CF case - it shouldn't have been an option

The test for a prosecution is two fold, is a prosecution in the public interest, and is there a realistic prospect of conviction.

The answer to the first one is usually yes, the second is more complicated.

A victim refusing to give evidence can mean there's no realistic prospect of a conviction, but there are plenty of cases where the case can proceed, as with Ms Flack.

So when the victim says I don't want it to go any further and it doesn't, that person may think their request has been listened to.

It hasn't, but if there is no prospect of a conviction without the victim's evidence, there won't be a prosecution.

The victim getting their way is an incidental consequence.

These decisions are all subjective, but due to public policy they are weighted in favour of pressing ahead if at all possible in cases of domestic violence.

In cases such as your mate's the decisions are more weighted to not going ahead.

The copper may have thought 'I possibly could build a case from other witnesses or CCTV, but it's a fairly minor assault, the victim isn't interested, so there's not much harm done by letting it go'.

Or it could have been there was obviously no case without the victim's evidence.

Most historic child abuse cases are like that, if the now adult victim doesn't want to give evidence the case is going nowhere.

 

[tom73]

We have no idea of knowing in this case but in cases like this It's very common for victims to not see themselves as such.
Domestic violence has over the last few years been taken more seriously. If on balance they have enough evidence to bring about a charge and if it's the norm to do so. Then everyone has to treated equal in the eyes in the law and no-one should be above it.
This case is in danger of turning the idea that men can be victims too into a running joke.
Just as it's now being taken seriously by the police and others.

Her death is sad as is the many other who feel only one out is the only way. If reports toady are to be believed she feared a show trail that's not down to the CPS or Police. It's the cult of the celeb and the press feeding an ever growing need to lap up every last bit be it the good, bad and ugly. SM now means when it becomes the latter the public can quickly turn equally as ugly then quickly move onto the next celeb to pick up on the feasting.

 

[Blue Hills]

The boyfriend refused to support the prosecution. He was the victim. It is not unusual at all for the CPS not to prosecute when the victim withdraws their complaint. Unless she had a history of violence. I cannot see the need for prosecuting her. Its only my opinion. I could not find the post you referred to.

Look harder for the post Steve. I would link to it but am on a spectacularly wonky reserve tab.
Basically palerider's post tallies with what I have read from various legal bods.
I imagine many female victims of domestic abuse might get, erm, "persuaded" to have second thoughts about a case proceeding. What do you think should be the proper response of the cps in such cases?

 

[ColinJ]

From what I have heard/read... I can see why the boyfriend wanted it dropped, why she allegedly assaulted him, why the police arrested her, why the CPS went ahead, and why she was desperately unhappy about the whole thing.

I just think that the media should be ashamed of themselves. Others elsewhere in the whole sad process could/should have handled it better.

As for the BBC news coverage... After 2 days they finally got an expert in to talk about the mental health aspects. They were discussing the Samaritans' advice on the subject of celebrity suicide, seemingly oblivious to the irony that the very advice they were discussing would rule out the entire discussion!

 

[steveindenmark]

Look harder for the post Steve. I would link to it but am on a spectacularly wonky reserve tab.
Basically palerider's post tallies with what I have read from various legal bods.
I imagine many female victims of domestic abuse might get, erm, "persuaded" to have second thoughts about a case proceeding. What do you think should be the proper response of the cps in such cases?

I cannot see how the boyfriend could have been persuaded to withdraw his statement. I had plenty of domestic files submitted to the CPS which were withdrawn when the complainant withdrew their complaint. In fact it was the norm. You cannot force someone into giving negative testimony.

 

[Pale Rider]

The boyfriend didn't make a statement, he declined to make one.

However, what he did do was say, either in the three nines call or to the copper attending, something along the lines of 'she whacked me with a table lamp'.

The CPS has a recording of the call, and video footage from the officer's body worn camera.

Both can be used in evidence to support the charge Ms Flack assaulted her boyfriend.

The case might be stronger if he made a statement and gave evidence against her, but not doing so does not automatically stop the case.

Following relatively recent campaigns against domestic violence, the CPS is obliged as a matter of public policy to pursue domestic violence cases if at all possible.

That policy was not in force when you did the job, so it's quite likely had the incident happened on your watch it would have been dropped.

I also imagine body worn cameras were introduced after you left the police.

There will also be cases where the body worn footage doesn't help.

If by time the officer arrives the couple have calmed down and are sitting on opposite sides of their lounge scowling at each other, the footage probably wouldn't assist the prosecution.

The same goes for the three nines call - it all depends on what the caller said.

In this case, the footage does sound lively.

One of Ms Flack's concerns about it being played in court was that she was naked in it, and it showed her in an otherwise bad light because she was shouting, swearing, and hurling abuse in all directions.

Her conduct, if not her nakedness, could have shattered her nice lass image - a shattered image is very bad for business as Michael Barrymore found out.

 

[Beebo]

The Scum, totally washing their hands of the issue and blame the CPS.
would the Sun have covered the trail if it had gone ahead? The trail wasn’t the issue it was the negative coverage that would follow that she feared.
Why did the Sun delete stories from its website after she died?

 

[Pale Rider]

To be fair to the Sun, they are reporting remarks made by her lawyers and friends which are critical of the CPS.

Or put another way, should the Sun refuse to report those remarks?

Those making them have a reasonable right to be heard, irrespective of what they are saying, and certainly irrespective of whether I think they are right or not.

Clever headline - as always.

I never saw the deleted stories so don't know why they did so.

It does look poor, if they are happy to stand by the stories by publishing them while she was alive, Ms Flack's death shouldn't alter that editorial judgement.

Curious, because it's usually the other way around.

Personal and intrusive stories, or dodgy stories that cannot be stood up, often only appear after the person has died, not least because you cannot libel the dead, so it's open season.

 

[marinyork]

I never saw the deleted stories so don't know why they did so.

It does look poor, if they are happy to stand by the stories by publishing them while she was alive, Ms Flack's death shouldn't alter that editorial judgement.

It's alleged that one of the Sun stories on Friday was about Valentine's day on that day and directly goading and making fun of Flack.

I was slightly unsure what people were talking about, but it appears to to check out and why some are so abhorred by it. Even in 2020. Even in the twitter/tabloid world. It was a valentine's card designed by a not very smart individual that I'm sure has better things to do that featured a representation of Flack (with other possible spoofs of the incident - depending on interpretation), a heart and a play on words about the assault rather than I love you. The Sun appear to have used it as a story on Valentine's day and added commentary.