CPS statement in relation to the case against Caroline Flack

Caroline’s death was a tragedy; our thoughts remain with her friends and family as they continue to come to terms with their loss.

Caroline was charged with assault by battery following an alleged incident of domestic violence against her boyfriend that took place at her home address in the early hours of 12 December 2019.

She appeared at Highbury Magistrates' Court on 23 December 2019 where she entered a plea of not guilty and the matter was adjourned for trial to 4 March 2020. Sadly, Ms Flack died in February 2020.

The decision to charge Caroline was kept under review on the basis of the medical opinion available to us at the time.

We remain satisfied that the prosecution was correctly brought.

A person’s celebrity status never influences whether a case is taken forward.

We have been transparent about our decision making in this case and presented evidence at the coroner’s inquest to Ms Flack’s death.

Why did the CPS decide to charge Caroline?

Following an incident in the early hours of 12 December 2019, the police were called to Ms Flack’s home address. Ms Flack was arrested at the property and then taken to hospital for medical treatment where she was assessed by the psychiatric team and subsequently discharged and taken to the police station.

Ms Flack was interviewed by Metropolitan Police detectives in the evening of 12 December 2019.

The Metropolitan Police than approached CPS Direct for a charging decision in the early hours of 13 December 2019. CPS Direct is our out of hours service that provides charging advice to police in cases where considerations around bail means a decision must be made outside of normal working hours.

When deciding to charge anyone with a criminal offence, the CPS must assess whether there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. Once it is determined that there is, it must then assess whether it is in the public interest to prosecute.

The duty prosecutor reviewed the material provided by police and concluded that Ms Flack should be issued with a caution.

Why did the first lawyer reviewing the case initially say no to prosecuting Caroline only for the CPS to then appear to ‘change its mind’?

After the recommendation was made to caution Caroline, the police immediately appealed this initial decision. They felt that a caution was not appropriate in this case.

Under the Directors Guidance on Charging, police can raise an appeal if they disagree with a CPS decision. This is then escalated to a CPS legal manager.

A legal manager reviewed the case and the representations made by the police. They concluded that the initial decision was wrong and that charges should be authorised against Caroline.

Simple cautions are rarely appropriate in cases of domestic violence and abuse.

They also require a person accused of such an offence to make an admission of guilt. As Caroline had not provided a clear and reliable admission of guilt in this case, a use of caution was deemed not appropriate.

What was the case against Caroline?

Our case was that Ms Flack had struck Mr Burton to the head with an object while he was asleep and unable to protect himself. This resulted in an injury that was bleeding. Initially, Mr Burton told police that he had been hit with a lamp when they arrived at the property in response to the 999 call.

Our prosecutor was required to give the court a summary of the evidence gathered by police at the first hearing.

Did Caroline’s celebrity status play a role in the CPS’ decision making?

No. The celebrity status of a person never plays any part in our decision making.

Did the CPS make considerations for the impact criminal proceedings had on Ms Flack’s mental health?

Miss Flack’s mental health was addressed on several occasions throughout the legal process and decisions were made on the basis of the medical opinion available to us at the time.

No further expert or medical evidence was served by the defence team after 20 December 2019.

As the inquest heard, there was clearly a more significant history of issues and a further deterioration of Miss Flack’s mental health of which we had not been made aware.

Why did the CPS continue the prosecution when the victim in the case did not support it?

The circumstances in this case were serious as they concerned an assault with a weapon on someone who was asleep and therefore defenceless at the time. Whilst it was clear from the offset that Mr Burton was unwilling to cooperate with a prosecution, a case could still be presented on admissible evidence gathered by the police without the need to obtain further evidence from Mr Burton.

This led to the decision that there was enough evidence and it was in the public interest to authorise charges against Ms Flack.

In cases of domestic abuse, our starting point is to always build a case in which the prosecution does not need to rely upon the victim. This is because domestic abuse victims can often be reluctant to support a prosecution against their abuser for a variety of reasons.

Therefore, even in circumstances where a victim does not wish to support a prosecution, as was the case here, if the evidential stage is passed, then it will be rare for the public interest stage not to be met.