Three days before she was due to stand trial accused of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice Eleanor de Freitas committed suicide. Last year she had accused a man¹ of rape. The investigating officers believed her, but lacked sufficient evidence to prosecute him. The Metropolitan Police still categorise it as rape, but they told her that they did not think there was enough evidence to prosecute her alleged attacker.

De Freitas had mental health issues. She had previously been sectioned. She accepted the decision not to prosecute him. The man that she had accused did not. He decided that his only option to clear his name was a private prosecution against her. He gathered texts and CCTV for that purpose. This was the basis of the decision to prosecute de Freitas.

According to de Freitasʼ father the man harassed her with texts and voicemails. Unusually the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided to take over that prosecution. It insisted that the police provide a disclosure officer and claimed that new evidence surfaced, justifying prosecuting de Freitas. It also insists that there was new evidence that the police had not considered.

Last November Allison Saunders succeeded Sir Keir Starmer as Director of Public Prosecutors. Saunders provided a robust defence of the CPSʼ actions in this controversial and tragic case. Saunders insists that prosecuting de Freitas met both criteria – that there was sufficient evidence to offer a realistic prospect of conviction and that it was in the public interest. However, the CPS that she inherited operates in a culture of secrecy over how it reaches decisions on whether to prosecute or not.

Dark Ages

Previously the CPSʼ Code for Crown Prosecutors outlined the criteria that prosecutors needed to be aware of when making decisions on whether there was enough credible evidence to pass the realistic possibility of securing a conviction test. Back then the CPS was open about what the criteria were, although it stressed that these were only guidelines. It also defined what prosecutors should be aware of when deciding whether prosecuting was in the public interest or not.

For further information on these criteria in an era when despite its faults – and there were many – the CPS believed in openness refer to Satish Sekarʼs book Fitted In: The Cardiff 3 and the Lynette White Inquiry² at http://fittedin.org/fittedin/?page_id=15.

That Code meant that it was possible to compare the evidence relied on in a case to the requirements of the Code and judge whether it was right to prosecute or not. It also mandated its prosecutors to be aware of lines of defence and how that would impact on the possibility of securing a conviction. This plainly applied in de Freitasʼ case, but does that apply in the decision-making process any more?

The decision to prosecute de Freitas would surely have benefited from such openness on the decision-making process of the CPS. Crown Prosecutors may still apply the sufficiency test in the decision-making process, but without access to those criteria, how can the public judge the conduct of the CPS and how can they hold the CPS responsible for its decisions.

The previous Code would have meant that the decisions made in the de Freitas case could have been understood and assessed with access to the knowledge needed to make an informed decision. Instead, the public are left in the dark, depending on crumbs offered by the DPP. It could and should have been so different.

Six months have passed since South Wales Police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) failed to complete the prosecution of 12 police officers and 2 witnesses for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and perjury. A unique legal action has had to be launched against South Wales Police to force them to return a journalist’s work product that they have unlawfully retained against the wishes of the rightful owner of that property – me.

Over 20 years of work, consisting of taped interviews, papers and letters, were given to officers investigating how one of Britain’s most shameful miscarriages of justice was allowed to happen. Despite the end of those proceedings police not only retain the originals and copies, but insist that they have the right to decide if or even when they will be returned and whether they will be provided to the DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions) and the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission).

Investigations into the collapse of the trials last December by IPCC and Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) continue with no deadline or end in sight and the bill continuing to rise without even the possibility of establishing how that miscarriage of justice occurred, or what will be done to prevent recurrence. The terms of reference of both investigations refer only to the collapse of the trial.

I had been due to be a witness in that case as I had gathered important evidence during my research into one of Britain’s first vindication case in a miscarriage of justice in the DNA age. The Cardiff Five (Yusef Abdullahi, John Actie, Ronnie Actie, Stephen Miller and Tony Paris) should never have been arrested, let alone stood trial. The CPS’s Code for Crown Prosecutors makes that very clear, but these men lost a total of 16 years to prison for a crime they did not commit. Abdullahi and Ronnie Actie did not live to see their fiftieth birthdays.

For at least 15 years the CPS has refused to explain why it failed to follow its own Code for Crown Prosecutors, despite its own Sufficiency of Evidence Criteria showing that this was obviously a case that should have been discontinued and quickly. The CPS not only refuses to talk about this wretched failure, but demands I wait an unspecified period after reneging yet again on a previous commitment to explain its conduct. And then they demand patience and cooperation with a process that disgraces any normal notion of justice.

I made it clear that I would not cooperate with the CPS’s investigations, as it is clear that the CPS has no interest in learning the lessons of its numerous failings in this case. They have never investigated their role in this case, let alone cooperated with an independent examination. Unlike South Wales Police the CPS has never apologised to the Cardiff Five, their families, Lynette White’s family and indeed society which pays again and again for the unbelievable incompetence or worse displayed by the CPS over more than 20 years in this one case. If it can happen here imagine how many others this unaccountable organisation has acted with similar disregard for evidence. I cannot cooperate with its investigations and the same applies to the IPCC for different reasons.

South Wales Police responded to my choice to end my cooperation by ignoring that decision and acting unlawfully. I was the only journalist listed as a witness in the ‘Lynette White Inquiry Police Corruption Trial.’ The CPS and Crown Counsel Nicholas Dean QC ensured that I alone could not attend the trial. Investigators into what had gone wrong were given access to my unique work product, papers, letters and tapes. They were loaned to police voluntarily for the duration of that investigation alone.

That process ended 6 months ago. At a meeting with assistant chief constable Matt Jukes and chief superintendent Tim Jones last December I demanded the return of my property. It was after all mine and I had a right to it. It had not been confiscated. It was not the proceeds of crime – they had no right whatever to keep it. Repeated requests were fobbed off. A ludicrous compromise was suggested. I could have copies while they kept the originals and would decide what should happen to them, including giving them to the CPS and IPCC against my wishes.

I have been denied access to my own work for over 6 months since the trial ended, preventing me from using my own work for my soon to be released book. Last week Darren White of Deighton/Pierce/Glynn wrote to South Wales Police was instructed. “As you will be aware, criminal proceedings in relation to this matter have now concluded and Mr Sekar has requested the return of his property held by South Wales Police,” wrote Mr White. “This property has not been returned to him, despite Mr Sekar making it absolutely clear that South Wales Police no longer has his consent to retain his property.

“If South Wales Police will not return our client’s property, please set out the legal basis on which the property is retained.

“If we do not hear from you by 15th June, we will commence legal proceedings on Mr Sekar’s behalf without further reference to you.”

If police can unlawfully retain the property (work product) of journalists and do so without their consent after receiving their voluntary cooperation previously and demand the right to do as they please with it, will any journalist cooperate with them ever again?