Police interview…

Welcome to week 19 of the court visit breakdown!

Here is your backstory:

  • This was a rape trial

  • I observed both the police and the defendant giving evidence

  • This was a part heard trial – so I was not able to observe anything from the victims’ point of view

I entered courtroom 3 ready to observe. The defendant was on bail, so he was there waiting to go into the dock.

The defendant entered the dock alongside the prison guard, and the barristers entered the courtroom. The court usher retrieved the judge from her room, and the trial began.

In the absence of the jury the barristers and judge discussed the agreed facts of the case, and a specific interview that was in the unused material*

Here the court usher went and collected the jury to bring them into court.

Initially, the judge explained to the jury about inferences. She said that agreed facts will be read out. These are facts that both parties have agreed on and are not disputing, therefore, you can take them as fact. In this case it was agreed that the victim had messaged and called multiple people saying she had been raped, and that the defendant had been arrested. She then explained about inferences being drawn from the defendant’s interview, and the inferences that can be drawn if the defendant relies on something they failed to mention when questioned.  

The trial began with the prosecutions’ case. They called a police sergeant into the witness box. They then read through the defendant’s police interview, with the sergeant being the police officers, and the prosecution barrister being the defendant. As the defendant decided to answer the questions that the police asked, we heard very clearly the defendant’s side to the offence.

Listening to the interview read through the prosecution, the defendant explained the offence as this:

  • The defendant had moved house 6 days before for work

  • He was living in a house share which offered him a room and en suite

  • He explained that he met the complainant on tinder

  • They had exchanged messages and agreed to meet up

  • They agreed to meet in a pub and have some drinks

  • On the day, the defendant was going to pay for the complainant’s taxi when she arrived

  • He said he was not going to be ready in time, so booked the taxi to arrive at his house instead of the pub

  • The complainant agreed

  • Once she arrived he paid the taxi and told her to wait outside whilst he quickly showered and got read

  • She followed into the room with him

  • He went into the bathroom clothed, showered, and entered the bedroom clothed also

  • He offered her a beer, and they both drank whilst he got ready

  • He then suggested that if she was comfortable they might as well stay at his rather than go to the pub. She agreed

  • He went to the shop to get some more alcohol

  • When he returned they sat together talking, he then kissed her and they engaged in sexual intercourse

  • Afterwards, he mentioned if she wanted she was welcome to stay the night, and to let her daughter know

  • She agreed and then went to retrieve her phone from the nightstand

  • He explains that she then began hysterically crying and saying she needed to leave.

Once the prosecution had read out that interview, as well as another where the defendant reiterated the same facts, they showed the jury some images of marks on the complainant’s stomach after the incident. This was then the end of the prosecution’s case.

Following this, the defence began. The defence barrister called to the witness box the defendant himself. Here she began going through the background of the defendant, asking why he had moved house, how he had met the complainant and his uses of Tinder. She then went on to discuss the events of that night, in chronological order.

This was a particularly interesting trial. It was fascinating to see how inferences can actually work and the importance of explaining that to the jury to ensure a fair trial for the defendant. It was also interesting to hear the facts of the case through a police interview and how much detail can be given during the interview.

See you next week!

*evidence gathered throughout the investigation of the case, that is not going to be used in the prosecution’s case.