A couple of points. The CPS dropped the case because the evidence they had changed part way through the investigation.
The evidence changed because the accuser removed her evidence. She is likely to have given a contradictory statement or a reason for withdrawing her initial statement. That is new evidence.
Greenwood was not found innocent, he was not found not guilty, the case was dropped. No further action was taken.
Without her statement, and likely with it the ownership of the video and audio, the only other evidence would be hearsay at best. No direct evidence.
Anybody who has ever been NFA'd for something they have actually done knows how limited the CPS is, criminal trails are expensive. I've been NFA'd a few times from street fights when I was younger.
We also know Greenwood broke his bail conditions straight away. The accused of domestic violence broke bail and moved in with the supposed victim almost instantaneously.
I hope I am the only one in this thread who has been accused of domestic violence. My next door neighbor misunderstood my flashbacks and night terrors from my CPTSD and called the police a number of times.
I was told by the police to leave the family home and was not to have any contact with the supposed victim (my then and still wife) while they concluded their investigation.
My lawyer told me any communication would be breaking bail, even if it was my wife who called me, not even allowed to pass messages through third parties. They would have told him the same. It was his bail, it was his responsibility to stick to the conditions of that bail, no matter the circumstances, with the punishment for breaking that bail being sent to jail in violation of a court order.
That meant me not seeing my wife or baby daughters for over a month. I missed emergencies because only the lawyers could pass me any information through. I was fecking horrible, but I did it because that's what you are supposed to do, especially given the consequences of breaking a court order, consequences Greenwood seemingly disregarded as he got her pregnant while on bail.
The club statement only refers to the initial accusations, attempted rape and physical assault. It mentions nothing of the subsequent charges of coercive behaviour, emotional abuse, threatening behaviour, and of course, breaking a court order. At least one of those subsequent charges we know he was guilty of.
And a further point about the supposed victims father and family. People are assuming that because they are supporting the couple, that they are doing from a point purely of loving their daughter, which I don't think they would be doing if the family wasn't white.
If her family was of colour, he father's statements would be looked at through the prism of "religion" and "culture". I don't think that's right, but I do think that's what would be happening.
The facts of the matter are that Greenwood is guilty of a crime, whether he was punished or not. The only way he didn't is if that's not his baby. Breaking bail in a DV case is a serious thing.
Good post although you can prosecute without a supporting victim if it remains serious enough and in the public interest to do so.
Hearsay evidence can be introduced and in some instances the victim can be compelled to give evidence.
Whilst the withdrawal of the victim was very important I also believe there was additional evidence that undermined the case and as such prevented this route being viable.
I’ve lifted the below from the CPS for those interested;
Evidence led prosecutions
The prosecution strategy should, from the outset, consider the possibility of proceeding without the victim's support and this should be clearly recorded within the prosecutor’s review. Prosecutors should rarely need to apply to the court for further time to investigate this possibility. Prosecutors should always consider whether there is any risk to the safety of the victim in the case proceeding without their support; a victim should not be placed at increased risk through this course of action. Where there is an evidence led prosecution, victims must still be kept informed of progress.
Prosecutors should consider the following in the order outlined:
- Using evidence other than that of the victim - the prosecutor should consider the potential evidence available that could be adduced. The following should be considered but is not an exhaustive list:
- First contact with the police such as 999 calls or the attending officers’ statements, which may cover the demeanour of the victim and the suspect and show the state of the scene
- Body worn footage – this could cover the demeanour of the victim or suspect (if they remain present at the time the footage was obtained), a first account, capture any injuries and may have significant comments
- Injuries which could include photos or the comments of what the attending officers have seen and any medical evidence available
- Independent witness statements
- CCTV – may capture the incident or demeanour of the parties
- Suspect’s interview – including any inconsistencies with significant statements
- House to house enquiries
- Telephone – messaging and social media
- Expert evidence
- Res gestae – A statement is admissible as evidence of any matter stated if:
- the statement was made by a person so emotionally overpowered by an event that the possibility of concoction or distortion can be disregarded, or
- the statement accompanied an act which can be properly evaluated as evidence only if considered in conjunction with the statement, or
- the statement relates to a physical sensation or a mental state (such as intention or emotion).
See below for further details on how to adduce evidence under the res gestae principle.
- Making an application under section 116(2)(e) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) - consideration should be given to applying to admit a victim's statement as hearsay under section 116(2)(e) of the CJA 2003, if there is evidence that the victim is in fear The court will assess various factors under s116(4) CJA 2003 such as:
- the statement’s contents
- any risk that its admission or exclusion will result in unfairness to any party to the proceedings and in particular to how difficult it will be to challenge a statement if the relevant person does not give oral evidence
- any special measures for the giving of evidence by the fearful witness; and
- any other relevant circumstances.
The prosecutor will need to show there is a causal link between the fear and the failure or refusal to give evidence. How this is proved will depend on the history and circumstances of the particular case (
R v Riat [2013] 1 ALL ER 349). Further guidance can be found in the
Hearsay legal guidance;
- Making an application under section 114(1)(d) of the CJA 2003 - where there is other evidence, consideration should be given to applying to adduce hearsay if it would be in the interests of justice to do so (prosecutors should refer to the legal guidance on Hearsay). For example, any third-party witness statements from neighbours or support representatives assisting the victim.
Prosecutors must re-review every case where a victim subsequently withdraws or refuses to participate in a prosecution. Prosecutors should determine if a case could be prosecuted without the victim being required to attend court to give evidence. If the evidential stage of the full code test is met, they should then apply the principles for public interest considerations in the
Code.
Adducing evidence under the res gestae Principle
Before considering adducing evidence by way of res gestae prosecutors should ensure that proper inquiries have been made to determine why a victim has not/will not appear at court, in accordance with the principles set out in
Wills v CPS [2016] EWHC 3779 (Admin).
Where the prosecutor concludes that the material is res gestae, they should indicate to the court that the prosecution position is that the evidence is admissible, and they intend to adduce it under the res gestae principle. The prosecutor should remind the court (if necessary) that the requirement for a written application under
Crim PR 20.2 does not apply and oral notice can be given of the intention to adduce the evidence as res gestae. (Crim PR 20.5(1)(b)).
Prosecutors should summarise the important details of the evidence, identifying the relevant content for example within the body worn footage or the 999 call.
The court should be referred to
s118(4) CJA 2003 which preserves the rules of law relating to res gestae:
Any rule of law under which in criminal proceedings a statement is admissible as evidence of any matter stated if-
- The statement was made by a person so emotionally overpowered by an event that the possibility of concoction or distortion can be disregarded,
- The statement accompanied an act which can be properly evaluated as evidence only if considered in conjunction with the statement, or
- The statement relates to a physical sensation or a mental state (such as intention or emotion)
Prosecutors should explain which subsection above they are relying upon and how the facts of the case mean it applies. The Court should also be referred to relevant case law, such as:
R v Andrews [1987] 84 Cr App R 382 in which the House of Lords said that the trial judge must ask whether the possibility of concoction or distortion can be disregarded. In answering that question the judge must have regard to:
- how startling or dramatic the event was
- how spontaneous the statement was
- whether the triggering event was still operative when the statement was made
- Any special features relevant to the possibility of distortion or concoction (e.g. evidence of a motive to fabricate false evidence); and
- Any special features relevant to the possibility of error (e.g. an identification made by a witness with particularly poor eyesight).
In
Barnaby v DPP [2015] EWHC 232 (Admin) the victim’s account was provided to the police on a 999 call. The victim then spoke to the police 6 minutes later after the incident and refused to make a statement. The evidence consisted of a transcript of the 999 calls and the account given by the victim when she saw the police officers at the premises shortly after the alleged strangulation. It was held the court was entitled to dismiss the possibility of concoction or distortion of the victim’s evidence: the 999 telephone calls were made almost immediately after the alleged assault which “would have dominated the thoughts of the victim and her utterances would have been instinctive and spontaneous” and the police arrived within six minutes of the last phone call and observed the victim in an agitated state with visible signs of strangulation on her neck.