The press are now attacking the prosecutors for going ahead with the Caroline flack a

Jasper79

Boggles wrote: »

No it is my opinion, obviously.

But if the alleged perpetrator killed themselves in what was a relatively minor case, that is not a great look given the CPS have the legal obligation of a duty of care.

Given the information that continues to filter out, the optics are looking much worse.

I can imagine the Coroners Case could be very interesting / damaging depending on which way they bring it.

But again, if people choose to kill themselves rather than face up to what they have done, She herself called it an "accident" I don't see how/why the CPS would be accountable. Should every pending defendant be put under observation ?

Stevieluvsye

Wash, Rinse, Repeat

Boggles

Jasper79 wrote: »

But again, if people choose to kill themselves rather than face up to what they have done, She herself called it an "accident" I don't see how/why the CPS would be accountable. Should every pending defendant be put under observation ?

Firstly the vast majority of people with severe mental health issues don't "choose" to kill themselves, they feel they have no choice. So maybe be careful with lax musings, it's not fair to people who have been bereaved by suicide who might be reading it.

Secondly, it's not my opinion, the CPS have a legal duty of care to the alleged perpetrator in a criminal case as I have explained all ready.

If you have a problem with their system, you'll need to ask them.

I will say this, do you need a more recent example of why they should thread carefully with issues of mental health and that a criminal route may not be the best?

drunkmonkey

Laura99 wrote: »

Laws are there for a reason

Laws are there to act in the public interest and to punish on behalf of the public.
There was nothing in this case in the public interest to pursue. It was jobsworths trying to secure a prosecution without any care for the damage they were doing.
I'd take a scratch from a lamp any day over being mentally put through the wringer by the state in what is a minor incident, she was not going to jail, she might not even had a conviction but the stress of the state turning on her was obviously too much. They need to be held responsible as their crime is a lot worse than what she done.

Stevieluvsye

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Laws are there to act in the public interest and to punish on behalf of the public.
There was nothing in this case in the public interest to pursue. It was jobsworths trying to secure a prosecution without any care for the damage they were doing.
I'd take a scratch from a lamp any day over being mentally put through the wringer by the state in what is a minor incident, she was not going to jail, she might not even had a conviction but the stress of the state turning on her was obviously too much. They need to be held responsible as their crime is a lot worse than what she done.

What's all this ballix about?

Galwayguy35

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Laws are there to act in the public interest and to punish on behalf of the public.
There was nothing in this case in the public interest to pursue. It was jobsworths trying to secure a prosecution without any care for the damage they were doing.
I'd take a scratch from a lamp any day over being mentally put through the wringer by the state in what is a minor incident, she was not going to jail, she might not even had a conviction but the stress of the state turning on her was obviously too much. They need to be held responsible as their crime is a lot worse than what she done.

What are you smoking this morning?

People need to be held accountable for their actions, nodody is suggesting she should have been thrown in jail but she should have had her day in court to answer for what happened as well as getting the help she needed for her mental health issues.

drunkmonkey

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

What are you smoking this morning?

People need to be held accountable for their actions, nodody is suggesting she should have been thrown in jail but she should have had her day in court to answer for what happened as well as getting the help she needed for her mental health issues.

In who's interest was the day in court, neither her or her boyfriend wanted it, so it was the state V's Caroline working on our behalf, I'd certainly no interest in seeing it pursued. Maybe others think it was worth it hope there happy with the outcome.

Blanco100

drunkmonkey wrote: »

In who's interest was the day in court, neither her or her boyfriend wanted it, so it was the state V's Caroline working on our behalf, I'd certainly no interest in seeing it pursued. Maybe others think it was worth it hope there happy with the outcome.

But dont you realise it would be quite common for a partner/spouse to drop charges against their abuser no?

Outlaw Pete

Amazed people can have such strong views either way tbh, given that there are so many unanswered questions.

Of what we do know, I do think that whoever it was that leaked that photo to the media (of the blood soaked bed sheets) should be sacked, at the very least.

If the blood (or at least the vast vast majority of it) had not come from the wound which Caroline inflicted on Lewis, which we're now being led to believe, then I think the police had an obligation to make that known (via a statement perhaps) given that it was the photo of the blood being leaked which allowed that narrative to run.

As for if the CPS should or should not have prosecuted her, that would all depend on EXACTLY what happened and right now I don't think we truly know. Just because in the heat of drunken row Lewis said that she tried to kill him, doesn't make it so.

Clearly she was violent towards him but the extent it seems may have been exaggerated, if that pic put out by Lewis is anything to go by at least. Either way, sad that she felt so low that hanging herself seemed to her to be the answer.

joe40

drunkmonkey wrote: »

In who's interest was the day in court, neither her or her boyfriend wanted it, so it was the state V's Caroline working on our behalf, I'd certainly no interest in seeing it pursued. Maybe others think it was worth it hope there happy with the outcome.

Are you seriously suggesting that domestic abuse cases or any kind of assault cases should only be pursued by the courts if the person assaulted wishes to bring charges.
That was the problem in the past when domestic abuse victims had very little protection.
I know the specifics of this case are terrible but the legal system is not at fault.
Look to the press and society of celebrity culture to see where blame lies.

osarusan

drunkmonkey wrote: »

In who's interest was the day in court, neither her or her boyfriend wanted it, so it was the state V's Caroline working on our behalf

How far do you take that argument though. If a terrified partner doesn't want to press charges against the violent partner who beat the crap out of them (and left them in hospital for example), should the state still be dropping the charges?


There must be a limit to how much influence the wishes of the victim have on the prosecution's decision-making process. The victim is not their only concern, the wider public are too.


The other side of that is the prosecution must justify that there is a wider public interest too - there must be a limit to the power of their decision-making process also.

drunkmonkey

Blanco100 wrote: »

But dont you realise it would be quite common for a partner/spouse to drop charges against their abuser no?

Was she an abuser, I didn't see that anywhere.

lawred2

drunkmonkey wrote: »

In who's interest was the day in court, neither her or her boyfriend wanted it, so it was the state V's Caroline working on our behalf, I'd certainly no interest in seeing it pursued. Maybe others think it was worth it hope there happy with the outcome.

So the state in your mind should ignore domestic incidents because you've no personal interest..

piplip87

drunkmonkey wrote: »

In who's interest was the day in court, neither her or her boyfriend wanted it, so it was the state V's Caroline working on our behalf, I'd certainly no interest in seeing it pursued. Maybe others think it was worth it hope there happy with the outcome.

Yes but these laws are place to gain a prosecution where the victim may be too scared to testify or bring charges. It's actually a very good law

Marcos

Raconteuse wrote: »

Cracked a lamp over his head while he was sleeping. Of course it was horrific.

I think it's time to look at some of the evidence presented in court on 23rd December.

The 40-year-old is accused of attacking Lewis Burton as he slept after seeing texts on his phone, sparking a “breathless” 999 call when he pleaded for police to help him and warned “she tried to kill me”.

Officers likened the scene to a “horror movie” when they found both Flack and her partner bloodied at her £1.1 million north London home, Highbury Corner magistrates court heard today.

It is said Flack continued to hurl abuse at her boyfriend as she was quizzed by police, threatening to kill herself before she flipped over a table and was pinned to the ground by officers.

“When police came to the door it was opened by a male and female – both were covered in blood”, said prosecutor Katie Weiss.

“One of the officers likened it to a scene in a horror movie.”

She said Mr Burton claimed he had been asleep when he was hit over the head with a lamp in the early hours on December 12, said the prosecutor.

“He sustained a visible cut to his head, his face was covered with blood,” Ms Weiss said.

“Caroline smashed a glass and she sustained an injury.

“Mr Burton believed the assault occurred as a consequence of the defendant taking a look at his phone while he was asleep.

“She had seen texts which led her to believe he was cheating on her.

“Ms Flack spoke to police and admissions were recorded on the body worn footage.”

Ms Weiss said the 999 call recorded Mr Burton “asking repeatedly for help to be sent to him” and was “almost begging the operator to send help”.

He said Flack was “going mad, breaking stuff”, and could be heard on the call saying Mr Burton had “ruined my life”.

The prosecutor added that after being cautioned Flack said “she will kill herself”, calling Mr Burton an “a*******” and “vile”.

Flack, who stepped down from hosting the new series of Love Island last week amid a storm over her assault charge, today pleaded not guilty to assault and will face a trial over the alleged assault by beating next year.

Mr Burton looked on from the public gallery as she broke down in tears when her lawyer Paul Norris described the effect the criminal case has had on her.

He said Mr Burton had issued a statement through solicitors asking for the case against Flack to be dropped and “never supported the prosecution”.

“He is not a victim, he was a witness”, he said. “He doesn’t support the prosecution, he’s never supported the prosecution and has strong feelings about the hearing this morning.”

However Ms Weiss said the case against Flack will continue despite her boyfriend’s lack of co-operation, with police bodyworn video providing much of the evidence in the case.

So we have a 999 call begging for help as the caller believed she was going to kill him, police body camera evidence and an admission of guilt on camera. But some people are now saying that this doesn't matter and that there was no public interest in prosecuting?

Would they feel the same way if it was the boyfriend who attacked her, admitted it on camera and then killed himself? I doubt it.

drunkmonkey

osarusan wrote: »

How far do you take that argument though. If a terrified partner doesn't want to press charges against the violent partner who beat the crap out of them (and left them in hospital for example), should the state still be dropping the charges?


There must be a limit to how much influence the wishes of the victim have on the prosecution's decision-making process. The victim is not their only concern, the wider public are too.


The other side of that is the prosecution must justify that there is a wider public interest too - there must be a limit to the power of their decision-making process also.

That's a general discussion, it doesn't relate to this case. If there was some evidence to suggest she was a danger to the public or anyone else well then it should be pursued. There was no evidence to suggest this was the case though.
In a once off case like this as I said in my first post this should have been investigated within the health service not the criminal justice system. The same needs to happen in Ireland everything is shoved through the courts which isn't the best place to resolve things.

Laura99

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Laws are there to act in the public interest and to punish on behalf of the public.
There was nothing in this case in the public interest to pursue. It was jobsworths trying to secure a prosecution without any care for the damage they were doing.
I'd take a scratch from a lamp any day over being mentally put through the wringer by the state in what is a minor incident, she was not going to jail, she might not even had a conviction but the stress of the state turning on her was obviously too much. They need to be held responsible as their crime is a lot worse than what she done.

There's been nothing new about this case released after she died. It was reported after the picture of the blood was released that it was mostly hers from her wrists. The picture of his cut was also released which actually would add weight to the fact that she did hit him with something hard and also it's on the top of his head she he was likely lying down as she is much shorter than him and likely asleep as he didn't protect himself. She also admitted she had done it on camera. This is what the courts are for, to decide on the evidence. People and the media also knew she had mental health issues at the time as she spoke about it previously, even just last October. None of them were up in arms to protect her. She had three mental health assessments since her arrest and all times was still shown to be at risk to her boyfriend. Do we really go back to the times of domestic abuse being a problem that should be kept within the house?

Laura99

drunkmonkey wrote: »

That's a general discussion, it doesn't relate to this case. If there was some evidence to suggest she was a danger to the public or anyone else well then it should be pursued. There was no evidence to suggest this was the case though.
In a once off case like this as I said in my first post this should have been investigated within the health service not the criminal justice system. The same needs to happen in Ireland everything is shoved through the courts which isn't the best place to resolve things.

She had three mental health assessments since her arrest and she was still shown to be at risk to her boyfriend in all three. How do you know what evidence was or wasn't there? This is what courts are for.

It's all a very sad situation.

drunkmonkey

lawred2 wrote: »

So the state in your mind should ignore domestic incidents because you've no personal interest..

If the 2 people involved like in this case didn't want to pursue it yes, with the blessing of the health services that it was an isolated incident.
Everything doesn't need to end up in front of a judge. The legal system quite obviously had a seriously damaging effect on her, that serves no good.

Laura99

drunkmonkey wrote: »

If the 2 people involved like in this case didn't want to pursue it yes, with the blessing of the health services that it was an isolated incident.
Everything doesn't need to end up in front of a judge. The legal system quite obviously had a seriously damaging effect on her, that serves no good.

But it didn't receive "the blessing of the health services", the opposite actually. The legal system has a damaging effect on most people that go through it. She was up for assault not attempted murder, the charge fit the alleged crime.

osarusan

drunkmonkey wrote: »

That's a general discussion, it doesn't relate to this case. If there was some evidence to suggest she was a danger to the public or anyone else well then it should be pursued. There was no evidence to suggest this was the case though.

I don't think we know what the evidence is really though, do we? The blood-stained sheets that were first published now seems to be very misleading (although not completely).

I've no issue with police investigating, and passing on the evidence to the prosecutor to decide whether it merits a charge or not.

I've no problem with the wishes of the victim being part of that process, but those wishes shouldn't be the only thing that carries weight. I'm not convinced that the mental state of the attacker should carry that much weight in their process either.

I don't know enough about the evidence in this particular case to say whether the prosecution is right or wrong to continue with the case. I don't think any of us do, really.

If you think there isn't a genuine reason for them to continue with the case (neither the seriousness of the assault itself, or the wider public interest), why do you think the prosecution are continuing with the case?

FishOnABike

drunkmonkey wrote: »

If the 2 people involved like in this case didn't want to pursue it yes, with the blessing of the health services that it was an isolated incident.
Everything doesn't need to end up in front of a judge. The legal system quite obviously had a seriously damaging effect on her, that serves no good.

Hard cases make for bad law. It would set a dangerous precedent if threats of self harm could be used to manipulate the prosecution services.

Rather than blaming the legal system the press would do well to engage in a bit of critical introspection on their role in her death. Which played a bigger role, the legal system or the adverse publicity and constant harassment from the press?

lawred2

drunkmonkey wrote: »

If the 2 people involved like in this case didn't want to pursue it yes, with the blessing of the health services that it was an isolated incident.
Everything doesn't need to end up in front of a judge. The legal system quite obviously had a seriously damaging effect on her, that serves no good.

An isolated incident is for the courts to decide.

How many documented cases of people living in fear telling police that they don't want to pursue another assault charge before this line of thinking dies off?

Crock Rock

If Paddy Jackson had killed himself during the trial, I can guarantee there'd have been no sympathy whatsoever.

statto25

Crock Rock wrote: »

If Paddy Jackson had killed himself during the trial, I can guarantee there'd have been no sympathy whatsoever.

I cannot understand that. It find it truly sad that someone can only see death by their own hand as a solution to a problem.

Rubberchikken

An unpublished insta post released by her family today in which she claims the assault was an 'accident'.

How would that defense have stood up in court?

Crock Rock

statto25 wrote: »

I cannot understand that. It find it truly sad that someone can only see death by their own hand as a solution to a problem.

🀣😂

James Brown

It's pretty sad to use her death as a dog whistle of outrage. The celebrity thing is a double edged sword. If people have to read about what you are wearing to some mundane cheesy award show, they'll likely be hearing about the bad things too.
She was reported on for allegedly beating up her boyfriend. I think that's to be expected, not that I can see any interest in what a presenter or reality person does.
I say leave the woman be and lets move on. The press cannot change because they give the people what they want.

tritium

drunkmonkey wrote: »

No it wasn't...you'd swear she went at him with a machette the way people in this thread are going on
..tis but a scratch.

Oh well that’s ok then. Can we go back to the old days, where it was fine once you didn’t leave any marks? We all thought we were being enlightened when things like coercive control became crimes but **** it we were wrong, unless there’s pools of blood and severed limbs then it’s not a proper DV incident at all...

Jesus wept....

tritium

Boggles wrote: »

No it is my opinion, obviously.

But if the alleged perpetrator killed themselves in what was a relatively minor case, that is not a great look given the CPS have the legal obligation of a duty of care.

Given the information that continues to filter out, the optics are looking much worse.

I can imagine the Coroners Case could be very interesting / damaging depending on which way they bring it.

Tbh I don’t see what the CPS are expected to do in situations like this - they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t. There was a similar furore in the Eleanor deFreitas case arguing charges shouldn’t have been pursued because she was bipolar but frankly that doesn’t make a crime into a non crime: you can’t really have a society that complains about light sentences for serious crimes and a revolving door system in one breath but then wants to have their own pet exceptions in the next