Man accused of raping stepdaughter among alleged rapists allowed to go free, watchdog finds

For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails

Sign up to our free breaking news emails

Please enter a valid email address

Please enter a valid email address

SIGN UP

I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our privacy policy

A man who apologised for raping his stepdaughter in a Facebook message is among the alleged sex attackers who were not charged because of failures by police and prosecutors.

An inspection found that “dangerous people are going free” because rapes are not being prosecuted.

In a report published on Friday, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and HM Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Inspectorate published several case studies that ended without justice for victims.

The watchdogs assessed 502 case files from five police forces and CPS areas where officials decided to take no further action or closed cases.

They warned that too many investigations focused on finding “weaknesses, rather than on building strong cases”, and that suspects were “often not subjected to the same scrutiny” as victims who face unnecessary trawls of their phones, sexual history and medical records.

The report concluded that there “needs to be an urgent, profound and fundamental shift in how rape cases are investigated and prosecuted”.

In the time period covered by the report, under 3 per cent of rapes recorded by police resulted in successful prosecution - 1,439 out of 56,000.

These are some of the cases uncovered:

“The victim’s mother contacted the police with concerns for her daughter’s safety. Police attended to check on her welfare, and the victim reported that she had been raped 10 days earlier by her stepfather.

While officers were there, the victim had a panic attack and assaulted the officers, so she was arrested. Over the following week she was spoken to on several occasions, but finally said she didn’t wish to make a complaint or attend court.

The sole focus in the case was on whether the victim wanted to make a formal report of rape. The police didn’t secure any evidence at the time, including Facebook messages where the suspect had apologised for what he had done, or speak to important witnesses.

While the focus should be directed towards the victim and securing their welfare, the police shouldn’t ignore investigative opportunities. Had the victim later changed her mind and supported police action, this evidence might have been lost.”

“The victim had been in a short relationship with the suspect. A neighbour called the police because they were concerned for the victim’s safety. When the police arrived, the suspect ran away. The victim had injuries to her neck.

“While the police were taking details about the assault, the victim disclosed being raped on several occasions by the suspect. In reviewing the case, the prosecutor suggested that because the victim didn’t react with angry shouting on the fourth occasion when she was raped, a jury might have difficulty accepting her account.”

“The victim was in prison when she reported a rape that had happened before she was sentenced. There seemed to be some inconsistencies in the disclosure. The victim was never spoken to by the police, nor was the alleged suspect.

In finalising the case, the detective inspector commented that “It is clear that he (suspect) would deny any allegations that are made”. It wasn’t clear whether any contact was ever made with the victim, due to her moving from one prison to another.

The case was finalised (Outcome 15) with no meaningful investigation taking place.”

“The victim, who was alcohol dependent, reported to their support worker that someone they knew had tried to rape them. When the police attended, they noted the victim had injuries, and used an early evidence kit to secure any potential forensic evidence.

The victim was taken to a safe place for the night. But officers didn’t speak to the suspect when they attended, even though they were at the address. The suspect was allowed to leave. The victim was reluctant to support the case, blamed herself throughout, and didn’t want to give an account via a video interview.

Although the victim was identified as vulnerable, the police didn’t consider getting an intermediary to help and support the victim through the process. The case was filed as ‘Outcome 16’ – no further action – as the victim didn’t support it. Although safeguarding was put in place for the victim, the police didn’t consider the risk that the suspect posed to other women.”

“The victim had been out drinking with friends, and later recalled being in a taxi with a man. She was found distressed on her doorstep and the police and ambulance service were called. The victim provided her account to the police the next day. In interview, the suspect told the police that sex had occurred in the taxi and that it was consensual.

He said he had only one drink that evening. He noticed the victim was unsteady on her feet and had been helped outside by the nightclub staff. The suspect said he recognised the victim as they were friends and he went outside to see if she was ok. He ordered them a taxi to share.

The suspect said that in the taxi it was the victim who initiated sex. As part of the investigation, the police obtained the victim’s school records, medical and counselling notes, but didn’t properly investigate the suspect’s account. The CPS also failed to recognise outstanding lines of enquiry and decided not to charge the case. Since our review, this file has been referred to the CPS, who have advised the police to conduct further lines of enquiry.”

“The victim reported a rape by her partner in September 2018. The initial investigation was dealt with swiftly and appropriately in the early stages.

The victim had a medical examination and gave her account by way of a video interview early. The suspect was arrested the day after the report. But the case was assigned to an inexperienced investigator.

“In November 2018, the case was referred to the CPS, who returned an action plan sent to the police to complete further enquiries. One year on from the reported rape, it is clear there has been no meaningful investigation and that there is a lack of supervisory oversight and direction. In January 2020, the victim withdrew her support for the investigation and the case was finalised by the police.”

“A case of domestic abuse rape in a 23-year marriage was reported. The most recent rape was four days before the report. The police referred the case to the CPS and submitted a full electronic file on 14 February 2018.

The CPS accepted the case on 24 February 2018 and at an early consultation the duty early investigative advice lawyer confirmed there was enough material for a lawyer to decide. The case would be given an appointment for a lawyer to give a comprehensive review.

But the comprehensive review didn’t happen for a further three months, when the reviewing lawyer sent the police a 23-point action plan. Some of the actions were unnecessary. The lawyer asked for the victim’s mobile phone and social media to be interrogated. There was no suggestion that these were of any evidential relevance.”

“In 2016, the victim reported to police several rapes by a previous partner dating back to between 2011 and 2013. The case was first referred to the CPS in March 2017 and a prompt action plan provided. No material was submitted by the police for six months and the case was recorded as ‘admin finalised’.

A year later, the police re-submitted the file and the case was reactivated. The prosecutor returned another necessary long action plan. Limited material was submitted, and the case was admin finalised for a second time because the police didn’t respond to the action plan. In 2019, the police submitted the case again, with considerably more material, in response to the request in the action plan sent in 2018.

The prosecutor provided another, very detailed action plan. Although some material was submitted, the prosecutor thought more information was needed. Two more action plans are provided to the police. The case was admin finalised for a third time after the police failed to respond. The case was eventually finalised by the police four years after the report.

The delays were caused by a combination of the poor quality of the police file and a lack of response to action plans, as well as some disproportionate requests by the prosecutor. The delays may also have been compounded by the lack of communication between the police and the CPS, as regular updates and reviews did not take place.”

*the wording of case studies is taken directly from the joint inspection report