Can you confirm that Mr Warren Blackwell's name has now been removed from the Sex Offenders' Register?
Can you also explain your reasoning in deciding not to prosecute his accuser?
I look forward to your timely response.
Chief Crown Prosecutor
Northampton NN1 5BE
DX No: 01604 823600
DX No: 18512 Northampton
Direct Line: 01604 235817
Our Reference: LE/SJJ
Mr H Liberal
email – email@example.com
8 February 2007
Dear Mr Liberal
RE: R –V- WARREN BLACKWELL
I am in receipt of your email correspondence of 23 January which has been passed to Northamptonshire CPS, as we were the area which dealt with Mr Blackwell’s case.
In responding to your complaint, it may assist if I explain the basis on which Prosecutors decide whether or not to bring a case against a suspect. There must be enough evidence to provide a ‘realistic prospect of conviction against the defendant’. A realistic prospect of conviction is an objective test. It means that a jury properly directed, according to the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the alleged charge. This is a separate test from the one that the criminal courts must apply - a jury should only convict a defendant if they are sure that he/she is guilty.
When deciding whether there is enough evidence to prosecute, Crown Prosecutors must consider whether the evidence can be used in Court and is reliable. This means that they must assess the quality of the evidence from all witnesses before reaching a decision.
If there is not a realistic prospect of conviction the case must not go ahead, no matter how important or serious it may be. If there is a realistic prospect of conviction, the Prosecutor will then consider whether it is in the public interest for the CPS to bring the case to court.
There is no direct evidence that the complainant fabricated the allegation against Mr Blackwell. False allegations made by her after the conviction of Mr Blackwell subsequently cast doubt on the reliability of her evidence against him. Whilst it remains a clear possibility that she fabricated the allegation against Mr Blackwell, it is no more than that, and falls significantly short of the required evidential test as outlined above, in terms of whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute her.
Mr Blackwell has been removed from the Sex Offenders Register
CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE
Unit Head, South Team
This response from the CPS is a pathetic whitewash. There apparently isn't enough evidence against Taylor to secure a conviction! There is a mountain of evidence against her, enough to bring multiple charges.
The full story is here, but here are a few highlights:
- She has a history of psychiatric problems, including allegations of sexual and physical abuse against a string of other men.
- Detectives also knew she had used at least four aliases and had convictions for dishonesty.
- In fact "She changed her name at least eight times and moved between addresses in three counties in an attempt to cover her tracks".
- Taylor perjured herself in court. At one point she even fainted, which we now know was all an act.
- She has a guilty demeanour. She "remained in the area for two weeks after the 'attack' - even going back to the social club one night for a game of bingo."
- While Mr Blackwell was in prison she made another wild allegation of having been assaulted by another man, this time with a knife.
- "She accused one of her own first boyfriends of rape; her father of sexual abuse; her own son of beating her up. At various other times over the past few years she claims to have been assaulted in toilets, punched in the face as she walked home and had a gun held to her head."
- She has also claimed to be disabled, to have cancer and a brain tumour, so that she could illegally claim state benefits.
- She left her second husband after five months, leaving him with thousands of pounds in debt after running up bills on his credit card.
The CPS say that they have no evidence against her! This is a joke!
This woman is a clear and present danger to the public, and needs to taken out of circulation. If they can't convict her for the Blackwell case, there is enough other material to keep a team of lawyers busy for a year.
There is a lot more evidence against Taylor than there ever was against Blackwell!
She accused Warren Blackwell of rape, and yet forensic tests showed that no rape had taken place. This evidence was withheld from the defence, and the charge changed to sexual assault!
His conviction rested solely on her picking him out at an ID parade which was carried out in breach of PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act) procedures. She didn't name Mr Blackwell until nineteen days after the attack, after having already named five other men!
Despite this clear miscarriage of justice against an innocent law-abiding father, the letter above continues to blacken Mr Blackwell's name. "There is no direct evidence that the complainant fabricated the allegation against Mr Blackwell."
So the CPS still thinks he did it! But here is the thing I don't understand: If they still think he did it, why have they removed him from the Sex Offenders' Register?
This would be a farce if it wasn't so serious. The fact is, the police and the CPS are desperate to convict men of sexual offences for purely political reasons, in order to please the feminists and make their statistics look good. Every conviction is treasured for its statistical value. It has nothing to do with serving justice or protecting the public.