Rape Allegations – January 2013
On 4th January 2013, Ms Eleanor de Freitas reported to the Metropolitan Police Service that I had raped her 12 days previously, i.e. on the evening of 23rd December 2012.
The police investigated her complaint. Six weeks later on the 20th February 2013, they decided to take no further action and closed the case.
Private Prosecution 2013–2014
I asked the police to investigate Ms de Freitas for making a false rape accusation. They refused, notwithstanding that there was a substantial body of evidence showing the allegation had been fabricated.
In the meantime, Ms de Freitas was telling people in my community that I had raped her. With no end in sight, I took the decision to bring my own legal case in order to establish my innocence. This was not a defamation claim, but a private prosecution for the charge of Perverting the Course of Justice.
I instructed the law firm Edmonds Marshall McMahon, specialists in private prosecutions. We assembled evidence and filed proceedings in court. That evidence included the following:
1. The first piece of evidence was Ms de Freitas own allegations to police: She told them that she had been raped on the evening of the 23rd December 2012. Said that she was crying, waterboarded, frozen with fear, and that I locked her in my flat until midday on the 24th December 2012. See what she said here.
2. But text message evidence showed a different story: She had messaged a friend at 9:20am on 24th December, saying that she had spent the night at my flat and that we were a "good match". She said that she liked me, and that we had "huge fun" together and thanked our mutual friend for being "matchmaker".
3. After sending the text messages from my flat, Ms de Freitas and I were captured on CCTV at 1130am (24 December), in a sex shop. The footage shows Ms de Freitas selecting a large amount of sex toys as I watch on. The bill came to £340 which we split, with me paying on my card and her giving me cash.
4. After spending £340 on sex toys (with her alleged rapist), Ms de Freitas then went to work, where she told her colleague about our date, saying she had an 'amazing time with an amazing guy'. Her colleague, gave a witness statement confirming this conversation.
5. Later that day at 7pm, I made some internet searches, and discovered that Ms de Freitas was living a double life as an escort. I was shocked, and called off the relationship, telling Ms de Frietas not to contact me again.
6. Ms de Freitas became upset by this sudden rejection. The next day, 25th December, she sent text messages to a friend, saying we had a "brief fling", that I was “full of adoration” and that I rejected her, complaining I had "defriended" her on Facebook.
7. Ms de Freitas became angrier over the following days, and told other friends that I had raped her.
Then on the 3rd of January 2013, (11 days after our date), Ms de Freitas backtracked, and tried to reconcile. She sent me an email apologising, saying, "sorry for the trouble I have caused you"– referring to the allegations she had made to friends.
I rejected her for a second time.
It was after this second rejection, that she went to police the next day, claiming I had raped her.
It seems the motive for the false allegation was mixed, partly as revenge for the rejection, and partly to save face, because she had to play along with the rape allegations she had told many people, which she initially did to explain why she appeared so upset (when she had in fact been rejected), and the lies snowballed.
8. The private prosecution case contained far more evidence than this, including around 360 pages of exhibits and a further 78 pages of witness statements. The index can be viewed here (witness names redacted). It is worth mentioning that Eleanor presented no evidence in her defence. None from her family, friends, or any other source.
9. Even Detective Inspector Julian King, one of the offers who investigated me for "rape", provided evidence and a witness statement supporting the private prosecution. His statement set out his ‘rationale to take no further action’, explaining the reasons why the Metropolitan Police Service had dropped the case against me. This included a reference to a text message sent by Ms de Freitas saying she had been “fucked and chucked” by me, in other words, that she had been angry at being rejected, and not raped.
Crown Prosecution Service takes over the case 2013-2014 and decides to continue prosecution of Ms de Freitas.
On September 11th 2013, at her first court appearance (the committal hearing), Eleanor’s lawyers told the court that she suffered from bipolar disorder. On 16th September 2013, my lawyers wrote to Mr de Freitas’ lawyers requesting any supporting medical records, stating:
“If your client is suffering from any significant mental or physical ill health, we would of course need to take this information into account when considering the public interest stage for any ongoing review of the matter”.
In other words, we were careful to follow proper procedures and to take all circumstances into account right from the start. Her lawyers, however, did not reply to the letter and provided no further information. Instead, they asked the Crown Prosecution Service to take over the case and stop the prosecution, claiming it was unfounded.
On 8th October 2013, the Crown Prosecution Service (having received Ms de Freitas’ request to stop the case) wrote to both her lawyers and mine, stating:
“Our CPS policies require such a case to be handled by a prosector with the appropriate levels of skill and expertise in light of complex and sensitive issues that arise. Furthermore any decision must be approved by a Chief Crown Prosector or Deputy and ratified by out Special Crime Division”
In other words, the CPS ensured that this case would be examined at the highest level, to make certain that all proper procedures were followed, prior to making any decision whether to allow the prosecution to continue or not.
On 27th November 2013, the CPS asked the court for a further adjournment of the case in order to continue reviewing the papers, which included a lengthy psychiatric report. They stated that any decision would need to be ratified by Alison Levitt, Principal Legal Advisor to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
It is also worth noting that Alison Levitt was the UK’s leading expert on false rape allegations at the time, having published a report (the same year) that analysed 121 suspects of false rape allegations, of which 35 were prosecuted.
On 5th December 2013, the CPS confirmed that both the evidential and public interest tests had been met, and that they would proceed with the prosecution of Ms de Freitas for Perverting the Course of Justice.
On January 24th 2014, at a plea and case management hearing, Ms de Freitas pled ‘not guilty’, and a trial was set for April 7th 2014.
In March 2014, Ms de Freitas’ lawyers approached the CPS to ask if they would accept a guilty plea to the lesser offence of ‘Wasting police time’. The plea bargain was not accepted, and the CPS continued with the original charge.
This was later confirmed to me by Simon Spence KC, the CPS prosecutor at the time, in an email from May 2024. See it here.
On 4th April 2014, Ms de Freitas tragically took her own life.
Inquest in Ms de Freitas death and subsequent Judicial Review Proceedings 2014-2016
In November 2014, an inquest was scheduled into Ms de Freitas’ death. The case attracted significant publicity, led by her father, David de Freitas, who claimed there was “no evidence” that his daughter had lied, was wrongly prosecuted and “hounded to death”.
The Director of Public Prosecutions, who oversees all prosecutions in England and Wales, issued a public statement in December 2014 to address the media speculation, which stated:
“…However, the evidence in this case was strong and having considered it in light of all of our knowledge and guidance on prosecuting sexual offences and allegedly false rape claims, it is clear there was sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction for perverting the course of justice. This was evidence including text messages and CCTV footage that directly contradicted the account Ms de Freitas gave to the police. This was not assumption based on her behaviour or actions which fall into myths and stereotypes about how alleged rape victims should behave. It was on this basis that we concluded that there was a realistic prospect of proving that the rape allegation made by Ms de Freitas was false, and there was also a strong public interest in prosecuting due to the seriousness of the alleged offence which was maintained by the defendant for some time and which led to the arrest of an individual.
…
I am satisfied that prosecutors had taken the necessary steps in assuring themselves that Ms de Freitas’ mental health had been properly considered. This was in the form of a very detailed report by a consultant forensic psychiatrist instructed by Ms de Freitas’ legal team, who also took into account the views of Ms de Freitas’ consultant psychiatrist. That medical assessment was clear. The doctor instructed by Ms de Freitas’ legal representative recommended that she was aware of the implications of making a false allegation, as she was alleged to have done, and was fit to stand trial. We do not take on these kinds of prosecutions lightly, but the medical evidence provided to us could not justify dropping such a serious case. No further representations were made to us as to Ms de Freitas’ health, which would of course have been carefully considered.
There has been speculation that the police did not agree with the prosecution for various reasons. However, the police never undertook an investigation into the alleged perverting the course of justice nor did they consider all the material provided to us by the private prosecution. They were therefore not in a position to form a view on whether there was sufficient evidence to prosecute.…”
The inquest was adjourned to 17th March 2015. At that hearing, the coroner explained that his role was to ascertain:
1. Who died
2. Where and when they died
3. How they came to their death
The coroner confirmed that Ms de Freitas had died on 4th April 2014, at her home in Fulham, and that the medical cause of death was hanging. Further stating that he was satisfied that Ms de Freitas took her own life. He then brought the inquiry to its conclusion.
Ms de Freitas’ father was not satisfied. He wanted the coroner to go behind the rape allegations and make a finding against the CPS or myself, to show that there had been wrongdoing on our part. He then brought judicial review proceedings in the High Court against the coroner.
On 15th July 2015, the coroner filed his defence to the judicial review proceedings, setting out his reasons. In paragraph 23 of his defence, he referred to a letter he had received from the Director of Public Prosecutions, which stated:
“As regards to the evidential stage, there were some 10 pieces of evidence which supported the prosecution case either (a) in that they contradicted Ms de Freitas account of the assault or (b) in that they amounted to apologies by her for making the allegations. As regards the public interest stage, protectors had reviewed a very full assessment of her fitness to stand trial, which suggested that she was fit.”
The Coroner also remarked at paragraph 39 (d):
“The Claimant [David de Freitas] argues that the Coroner was obliged to investigate the prosecution because of the impending trial was a stressor which may have influenced Ms de Freitas decision to kill herself. However, it cannot be right to say that, in nay suicide case, the coroner must investigate in detail any and all events which may have distressed the deceased person and influenced his/her decision. Was it, for example, incumbent on the Coroner in this case to investigate in detail relationship issues within the de Freitas family, since they were recorded as having n affect on Ms de Freitas mental condition (e.g. in Dr Benches records of 31st December 2012, 24th September 2013, 14 October 2013 and 27th March 2014)?”
In paragraph 43, the Coroner again stated that:
“A psychiatrist (instructed by her own legal team) had assessed her as fit to stand trial in the first place. Treating clinicians who saw her regularly regarded her as displaying only mild depressing symptoms in the period shortly before she died. In other words, she did not foreseeably present such a serious risk that the only lawful option was to discontinue the prosecution”.
This was then later reinforced in paragraph 44 (b)
“At no time after that did any of her treating clinicians say that she was unfit to stand trial, or at the immediate risk of suicide.
…
Ms de Freitas was being seen regularly by a psychiatrist who knew her well and who, in his last appointments with her, recorded that she was fi to stand trial and had only minor symptoms”.
On 9th March 2016, Mr Justice Holroyde, sitting in the High Court, after reviewing all of the papers, denied the application for judicial review. In his reasons, he stated at paragraph 5:
“…The CPS here had medical evidence, including that which was relied on by those representing the deceased {the de Freitas family], which did not identify any real of immediate risk to her life. No representations were made to the CPS, in the days immediately proceeding her death, to the effect that her condition was worsening and that the prosecution was endangering life”.
In other words. The CPS were not provided with any medical evidence that Ms de Freitas conditioning was worsening (after having been given a report from a psychiatrist that she was fit to stand trial). They were also not a party to her confidential medical records. But even if they were able to (somehow) compel a criminal defendant to release their medical records against their own will, then even those confidential medical records showed that she was deemed fit to stand trial on the 27th March 2014 by her own consultant psychiatrist Dr Bench, just a week prior to her death, and that no other records existed to the contrary.
Attorney General makes a public statement on the Eleanor de Freitas case in June 2018
Mr de Freitas did not accept the High Court’s decision and took the case to the Attorney General.
It is worth noting that, up to this point, the prosecution case against Ms de Freitas had been reviewed by the following:
1. Sarah Maclaren, Head of the Rape and Serious Sexual Offence (RASSO) unit at the Crown Prosecution Service
2. Jenny Hopkins, Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor for London
3. Alison Levitt, Chief Legal Advisor to the Director of Public Prosecutions, with extensive experience in false rape allegations
4. Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions
5. Judge Deborah Taylor, who oversaw the prosecution of Ms de Freitas in the Crown Court
6. HM Coroner, Mr Chinyere Inyama, during the inquest proceedings
7. Mr Justice Holroyde, sitting at the High Court during the judicial review proceedings
These were all highly qualified and experienced professionals, the majority of whom were senior women in the CPS, which indicates that gender bias did not influence the decision-making process.
All of these people found no wrongdoing by me or the CPS, after examining every scrap of paper in the case.
And then on the 26th June 2018, the Attorney General made a public statement, saying:
“I recognise that this was a difficult case with a tragic outcome and I extend my deepest sympathies to Mr De Freitas and his family. However, I have carefully considered the concerns raised by Mr De Freitas and I am satisfied that this case has already been subject to extensive scrutiny within the CPS, and that it was right for the prosecution to go ahead”.
Police pay me £10,000 for their misconduct, and DI Julian King leaves the force.
In 2018 I took legal action against the Metropolitan Police Service alleging that they had wrongly refused to investigate Ms de Freitas for perverting the course of justice.
The police paid me £10,000 in compensation by way of settlement before trial. Detective Inspector Julian King, subsequently left the police force after allegations of misconduct against him were found to be “proven”, due to refusing to investigate Ms de Freitas for perverting the course of justice and because of various emails he had sent to David de Freitas making a series of unjustified statements.
Overall Conclusions
It is right to acknowledge that Ms de Freitas was a tragic victim of suicide, the product of serious mental health conditions. But she was not a victim of rape. Nor is it correct to suggest that the prosecution was responsible for driving her to her death.
The coroner, in his own submissions, commented that after reviewing all of her medical records it was evident that family issues were causing her significant mental health problems right up to a week before her death. He referred specifically to the records of Dr Bench dated 27th March 2014 (she died 4th April) [para.39(d)].
Yet for the past decade her father, together with self-proclaimed feminists Harriet Wistrich and Lisa Avalos, has sought to misrepresent the facts. They persist in portraying me as a rapist in public forums, under the mistaken belief that justice for Eleanor requires attributing blame to me.
This raises the central question. What more, in truth, could any defendant ever produce to establish his innocence? In the ordinary course of such cases there is very little by way of corroboration. One person’s word is set against another’s. Yet here the position is wholly different.
We are dealing with CCTV footage of her with me, shopping for sex toys, only hours after the supposed assault (she had told police she was crying, waterboarded, frozen with fear, and described how she even had to fight back).
We are not dealing with vague or ambiguous text messages. We are dealing with specific messages, sent from my flat the very next morning (that is, from the alleged crime scene), in which she wrote that we had “huge fun” together — a reference to the past, during the very period when she claimed she was raped.
And when she later spoke to friends, she did not say that she had been raped. She said that she had been rejected. And this is why she was upset, making is very clear in her text messages.
Crucially, before even complaining of rejection, she told the first friend she saw that she had an “amazing time with an amazing guy”, a statement recorded in testimony in this case.
In any comparable matter this would be regarded as overwhelming. Independent CCTV evidence. Contemporaneous text messages. Witness statements. An email of apology from the complainant herself. This is the sort of material that any defendant, facing such a grave allegation, could only dream of having.
Yet despite all this, David de Freitas and his fellow activists, continue to publicly assert that Ms de Freitas was raped, even a decade later in 2025. They do so, it seems, on the extraordinary proposition that unless there exists video footage of the sexual activity itself, accompanied by the complainant audibly declaring her consent at regular intervals, then no other evidence will ever suffice.
And so the question must be asked. How much evidence is required before innocence is accepted? At what point does the scale finally tip? If CCTV footage, contemporaneous messages, apologies, and direct witness statements are not enough, then what would ever be enough?
 |
| CCTV at Ann Summers 11:30am 24th December 2012 |
