Army rape charges dismissed
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Six Army officers accused of gang-raping a 24-year-old woman walked free from court after their trial was halted yesterday. A judge at Oxford Crown Court decided there was not enough consistent evidence to convict the men, and directed the jury to return verdicts of "not guilty".
The six - captains Philip Bates, 26, Darren Bartlett, 24, and Ian Barlow, 29, Lieutenant Matthew Tupling, 24, and officer cadets Nicholas Oettinger, 20, and Andrew Stout, 20 - had denied raping the woman at the Royal Military College of Science in Shrivenham, Oxfordshire, on 27 May last year.
The jury at Oxford Crown Court had heard that the woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, claimed the men assaulted her in a bedroom at the college after a drunken day out at a nearby fete. The officers said she had consented to having sex.
The following day the men sent the woman a bunch of flowers with the message "Sorry about the misunderstanding. Please accept apologies from all involved."
During the trial a friend of the victim told the jury that she had twice spoken with her on the telephone in the week leading up to the alleged assault. The friend said she was pestered to join in a group sex session with the woman and a group of Army officers.
The court also heard that 10 days before the alleged attack, the woman had had sex with Oettinger and another man at the college while Bates lay beside them in a drunken stupor.
When the woman reported the alleged rape to police six months later, she failed to mention the earlier group sex session. She also failed to tell police that she had had sex with another of the men, Stout, just hours before the alleged rape.
Judge Julian Hall decided that inconsistencies in her evidence made it unsafe to allow a jury to reach verdicts.
He said the defence's attacks on the woman at the centre of the case were not "attacks on her morals or on her way of life, they are attacks on her credibility or reliability as a witness in this case". He was conscious that it was normally for the jury to decide the facts of the case, but he had acted as a filter in this case to ensure a fair trial. However, he added, "If six men think it's a good idea to have sex with one woman, they run the risk of being accused of rape. I think they have brought this prosecution on themselves."
He said the six realised they had gone too far after the girl was obviously upset - the episode was "almost bound to end in tears". The judge went on: "It was ill thought through by everybody and it does no one any credit."
He ordered that the six men's costs should be paid in full.
A spokeswoman for the Army said: "The Army authorities will now consider what action would be appropriate. Until that consideration is complete we are unable to comment."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments