Case Evidence:

01. We have spoken with the Defendants Trial Barrister.

The QC Barrister advised us that the Defendant would absolutely have their Conviction overturned in an Appeal in Court based on all facts and evidence throughout the Investigation and Trial.

It is stated that the only prevention to this is that for an Appeal to be granted, you must have fresh evidence that was not available prior/or at the time of the Investigation and Trial, otherwise the facts and evidence will not be looked at.

There is now fresh evidence on multiple grounds proving the statement by the Defendant that the allegation against him is false and untrue.

02. The Complainant stated to the Police from the initial report of the allegations that prior to her allegations complaint was that she was a virgin, and had no previous sexual experience at all.

This fact was reiterated throughout the investigation and trial, making it a key substance to which the allegations were founded on.

It has come to light that in fact the Complainant was quite the opposite prior to her allegations complaint, having had a previous pregnanacy termination, undermining the basis of the complaint.

03. Two Police vehicles lay in wait just before the Defendants workplace days before any allegation was put to the Defendant and their arrest.

The Defendant was pulled over and the Police Officers had a good look around and inside the Defendants car.

The Defendant was then told they could go on their way, as it was just a routine stop check. Though this is not the case as the Defendant was not asked to show documents, and no producer document (HO/RT1) was even issued to the Defendant to check any documents, which the HO/RT1 is standard issue to a stop check.

A witness saw the Police vehicles in question pull up prior to the Defendant arriving in his car, they did not stop any other motorist,  and left immediately after stopping the Defendant.

Appears to be they were purely on reconnaissance to obtain details about the appearance of the Defendants car.

Proof of this fact in our possession.

04. The Complainant stated to the Police that they definitely bled all over the rear seats of the Defendants car during the alleged sexual intercourse, and that sexual intercourse was unprotected.

This being a reason for a lot more compensation payout to the Complainant.

Police seized the Defendants car and conducted a forensic examination of the car, which resulted negative for semen, DNA, and blood.

Upon the result being negative the Police stripped the Defendants car of seats and carpets to send to a Forensic Laboratory for an Intensive Forensic Examination, which also resulted negative for semen, DNA, and blood.

Proof of this fact in our possession.

05. The Police Investigating Officer did a second search of the Defendants home by himself.

This second search is not registered in the Police search log of a suspects house or property, which is a blatant breach of official procedure.

Although it came to light as was accidentally mentioned by Police during the Court case.

06. The other Police Investigating Officer called the Defendant to the Police station to 'have a chat' .

Once at the Police station, the Police Investigating Officer led the Defendant through to a secure area of the Police station, and said to the Defendant that the Forensic had come back with blood all over their seats of their car, so they will be arrestsed and convicted. This was a lie.

The Police Investigating Officer took the Defendant to a side room, only the two of them, and the Police Investigating Officer said "I am going to take your DNA sample now".  The Police Investigating Officer went out of the room, and came back with a DNA kit, took a DNA sample from the Defendant, and then put that unmarked sample into his pocket.

The Police Investigating Officer at the end said you can go now, to which the Defendant said "but I am to be arrested", to which the Police Investigating Officer replied "we may arrest you at a later date".

Proof of this fact in our possession.

07. The Police Investigating Officer came to the Defendant's place of work with a uniformed Police Officer, asked to speak to the Defendant.

The Police Investigating Officer said to the Defendant "we have spoken to the authorities of your work and licence, and you realise your licence is suspended and you are not allowed to work".

The Defendant thought and replied "this seems strange, as the authorities would contact me directly or failing that my employer should that fact be true, so I am unaware of this".

After the Police left the place of work, the Defendant made official enquiries with the authorities, who informed them that these allegations by the Police Investigating Officer were false.

This was absolute lies and appears to be to try to discredit the Defendant, and cause them harassment and distress.

There is witness to this fact.

08. The Police Investigating Officers informed the Defendants employers that they had found blood on the seats of the Defendants car.

This is absolute lies and appears to be to try to discredit the Defendant, and cause them harassment and distress.

09. The Investigating Police Officer stated that the Complainant prior to making the allegations was unknown to Police.

It has come to light that in fact the Police Investigating Officer in previous years to the complaint had been in a sexual relationship with the Complainants mother, the Police Investigating Officer has never disclosed he previously knew the Complainant and her family, which they are required to do so by law.

Proof of this fact in our possession.

10. The Police Investigating Officer stated that prior to the allegations that the Complainant was previously of good character.

A copy of the Police persons report shows the Complainant was previously well known to Police for criminal reasons, this was not disclosed to the Defence.

Proof of this fact in our possession.

11. The Police Investigating Officers informed a car rental company that the Defendant was using, due to their car being seized, that the Defendant was a criminal and may be transporting illegal drugs.

The Defendants was not a criminal and has never been involved in illegal drugs.

This is absolute lies and appears to be to try to discredit the Defendant, and cause them harassment and distress.

Proof of this fact in our possession.

12. Upon summing up the Case during the Trial.

The Judge stated it would be unsafe to convict this man based on what they had heard in the Trial, which is a statement of the context of the case.

In law this means the conviction would be unsafe and the Judge has a duty to dismiss the case, which the inexperienced Judge did not adhere to.

Proof of this fact in our possession.

13. The Complainant changing her evidence in Court.

In the Complainant's initial statement to Police they stated they bled on the seats of the Defendant's car.

Contrary to the Complainant stating in Court that she had not stated this to the Police, which is a blatant lie.

Proof of this is in the documents in our posssession.

14. The Complainant stated she would give a date.

During the interview of the Complainant they stated to Police that they could give a date of the alleged sexual intercourse, although did not give the date in the interview and said they would update the Police with it.

The Complainant did not update Police with the date.

During the Court Trial the Defendant was asked about the date of ther alleged sexual intercourse that they said they would give, to which they refused to give a date.

In the Defendents line of work they have a log of where they are on what dates, including very often out of the country, so may be able to disprove the allegation should the Complainant give a date.

Could this be the reason the Complainant denied to give the date.

How can the Defendant defend against the allegation without a date or time that an offence was said to have taken place.

15. Police conducted Forensic Examination of allegation rooms and areas.

A witness has informed the Defence that the Police conducted a full Forensic Examination of rooms and areas in the premises that the Complainant stated offences were committed, this was never disclosed by the Police to the Defence, was deliberately withheld.

Hence in the trial the Jury did not have this knowledge that a full Forensic Examination of the Defendants vehicle and a full Forensic Examination of rooms and areas of Complainants allegations was concluded as 100% negative for Forensic Proof against the Defendant.

16. In the Court trial a Prosecution Witness was called to give evidence on a statement they had made to Police.

Corroborating an allegation from the Complainant about the Defendant, that the Complainant said that Witness had been present and witnessed an incident.

The Prosecution Witness upon swearing on the bible in the Court paused and did not want to answer, the Judge intervened and asked the Prosecution Witness if they had actually witnessed what they had stated to Police they had witnessed.

The Prosecution Witness stated they had not witnessed such event as they had previously stated to Police, and at no time they had witnessed anything.

The Prosecution Witness was dismissed.

17. In the Court trial a Defence Witness was NOT called to give evidence on a statement they had made to Police.

The Prosecution had requested that the Defence Witness was not to be called to give evidence, and it was approved.

Although the witness was due to appear in the Court Trial as planned to give their testimony, and they were present waiting at the Court.

The Defendant was not aware of this, and did not give permission to cancel a witness who had damning evidence against the accusations of the Complainant.

Clearly this was a Prosecution tactic, as it must have appeared to the Prosecution that they were almost certainly going to lose the case based on what had already been heard at the Trial.

The Defence Witness statement is in our possession.

18. After the Trial a Witness came forward through investigations.

A member of the public who read about the Defendants conviction, and knows of them, came forward to the solicitor regarding an event that was recalled.

They have made a statement that the Complainant, who they are prepared to formally indentify, was witnessed in previous months upset at being refused entry into a public venue and in a inebriated state shouted abuse at the security persons, including admitting that they (the Complainant) were setting up the Defendant at a forthcoming Trial as a warning to the security persons.

The Complainant issued this inebriated verbal warning to the security persons, as the Complainant was paranoid that due to the Defendant previously working in the security profession, that these security personnel were refusing the Complainant entry because of taking a personal dislike to the Complainant, whereas it was due to the inebriated state of the Complainant that evening.

Proof of this fact in our possession.

19. The Complainant knew general information about the Defendant.

This was ultimately what the Prosecution were basing their prosecution on.

The Defence proved that this non personal and general information was readily known openly available locally and on social media.

We have found some information stated by the Complainant about the Defendant that was always factually incorrect.

20. During the investigation the Case was pushed with no evidence or facts.

It has now come to light that the investigating Police Officer was in previous years having a sexual affair with the Complainants mother, which was never disclosed.

The investigating Police Officer had a personal vested interest in this Case.

In previous years to the allegation against the Defendant, the investigating Police Officer had a Police Disciplinary Hearing against him, where he pleaded not guilty to the extra marital affair with the Defendants mother, but he was found guilty.

This is on his Police Record, which the Police refuse to disclose to the Defence.

Although a professional who knows of this affair on the investigating Police Officer's Record, and at the time also witnessed first hand the investigating Police Officer involved in a public place with the Complainant's mother, has made a statement.

21. Conspiring to make False Allegations.

Witness statements have been taken that prove the Complainant was discussing with a friend in a public place regarding making false sexual allegations against the Defendant and another man, prior to any complaints being made to Police.

Within two weeks of each other the Complainant made the false allegation against the Defendant, and the Compainant's friend made a false allegation against the other man they were conspiring about previously.

Fortunately during the other man's Trial, his Jury found him not guilty due to no evidence against him, only the word of his accuser.

Which shows how different Jury's react different to cases, as the Jury are everyday persons and are not trained in Law.

Meaning they can convict on the basis of how they feel, as in if they have witnessed media events of this type of offence, then they can be in a frame of mind due to their disgust for the type of offence, and not base their judgement on the case in hand before them.

22. Unlawful adjustment of notation of the Trial.

The full audio transcript recordings of the Trial have been listened to.

From these official audio transcripts certain key statements have been removed/erased from the audio recording, that are beneficial to the Defence.

Including a statement that would lead to an immediate grounds for Appeal in the Royal Courts Of Justice.

This is not only illegal but highly immoral.

23. The Jury in the Trial were of no standing in society.

The Jury must be made up of peers of the Defendant.

This was not so, the Defendant did not stand Trial against a Jury of their peers.

Everyone in the Jury was of low standing in society, except one member of the Jury (who enthusiastically asked to be the Foreperson, was said to be a Police Officer).

The Defendant is a Professional person with high rank.

This is not a poignant matter, but still shows that the Trial was not conducted at all in the correct manner and procedures.