Witness statement of Lisa Ramsarran in the matter of the inquest touching upon the death of Caroline Flack, deceased
First Witness Statement:
Name: Lisa Ramsarran
IN THE POPLAR CORONER’S COURT
BEFORE H.M. CORONER FOR INNER NORTH LONDON AREA
IN THE MATTER OF:
THE INQUEST TOUCHING UPON THE DEATH OF CAROLINE FLACK, DECEASED
WITNESS STATEMENT OF LISA RAMSARRAN
I, LISA RAMSARRAN of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), London North Area, 102 Petty France, London SW1H 9EA, WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS:
1. I make this statement on behalf of the CPS to assist the coronial investigation into the death of Caroline Flack. Insofar as its contents are within my personal knowledge, they are true and insofar as they are not within my personal knowledge, they are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
2. The CPS is an independent body responsible for the prosecution of criminal cases investigated by the police and other organisations in England and Wales. The Director of Public Prosecutions leads the CPS under the superintendence of the Attorney General who is accountable to Parliament for the work of the CPS. There are 14 regional CPS areas, each headed by a Chief Crown Prosecutor. Each area will have a number of units covering different strands of casework. One or more Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutors support the Chief Crown Prosecutor overseeing the work of individual units. Different grades of lawyer work within the units ranging from Crown Prosecutor level to Senior Crown Prosecutor. There are also legal managers within each unit ranging from District Crown Prosecutor, Senior District Crown Prosecutor and Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutors.
Background: My role
3. I have been employed by the CPS since 1996 and in that time have undertaken a variety of different roles. Prior to my current role, I was the Senior District Crown Prosecutor responsible for Rape and Serious Sexual Offences and Complex Casework in the South East Area. On 29 July 2019, I was appointed as the Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor responsible for CPS London North Magistrates’ Court Unit. In that role, I have overall responsibility for the team of prosecutors conducting cases in Magistrates’ Courts in the London North Area. At the time of her death, Ms Flack was facing a prosecution that was before Highbury Magistrates’ Court. As such the case fell within the remit of my unit.
The purpose of this statement
4. On 10 March 2020 I received an email from Ms Sandra Polson introducing herself as the Coroner’s Officer with conduct of this matter. The email explained that Senior Coroner Hassell had listed the inquest into the death of Ms Flack for conclusion on Wednesday 5th August 2020. Ms Polson also wrote that the Learned Coroner had requested, and I quote, “the report from CPS about their decision making and the maker of that report to attend the inquest.”
5. I provide this statement in response to the Learned Coroner’s request. I have had to set out details of some of the evidence gathered by the police and the representations made by solicitors acting for Ms Flack (BCL Solicitors LLP; hereafter BCL) so as to give a sufficient explanation of the basis on which the decision to charge Ms Flack was made and maintained. I appreciate that some of this information will be upsetting to Ms Flack’s family. I have endeavoured therefore to limit the detail set out below to that necessary to comply with the Learned Coroner’s request.
Decision making within the Criminal Justice System
6. There is a clear division of roles between the police and the CPS. As set out in published guidance (Charging (The Director’s Guidance) 2013 - fifth edition, May 2013 (revised arrangements)) there are some cases where the police are able to authorise charge – this includes all summary offences and some either way offences. However the guidance sets out that cases involving allegations of Domestic Abuse (as was the position in this case) must be referred to the CPS for authorisation of charge. Once a police investigator has completed the investigation he or she prepares a document internally referred to as an MG3. This will set out full details of the police investigation together with an overview of the evidence obtained and the outcome of all reasonable lines of enquiry. The investigator is required to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the case and consider public interest factors. Once completed, the document is passed to a supervising officer to confirm it is appropriate for the investigation to be referred to the CPS for a pre charge decision.
7. Cases that require charging advice outside office hours and where the police intend to hold the suspect in custody for court are referred to CPS Direct (which operates as a “virtual” 15th CPS Area, its team members being based throughout England and Wales). Prosecutors in CPS Direct will review a MG3, the available evidence and any other material relevant to the case as supplied by the police and will then determine whether charges should be authorised. A prosecutor can authorise charge, refuse charge or advise the police that further lines of enquiry be followed in order to complete the investigation.
Relevant Guidance
8. A prosecutor makes a charging decision in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors - 26 October 2018 (“The Code”). This is a public document, issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The general principles set out in The Code include that CPS prosecutors are independent and must be free to carry out their professional duties unaffected by improper or undue pressure or influence from any source. It explains that it is not the function of the CPS to decide whether a person is guilty of a criminal offence, but rather to make assessments about whether it is appropriate to present charges for the criminal court to consider. In making decisions, prosecutors must be fair and objective and not let personal views as to, for example, the gender of a suspect, victim or witness influence their decision.
9. The Code sets out two stages of the test (together described as the “Full Code Test”) to be applied when considering whether a charge should be authorised. First, the prosecutor must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction (the evidential stage). Second, the prosecutor must be satisfied that it is in the public interest to prosecute the case (the Public Interest stage). A pre-requisite to applying the Full Code Test is that all reasonable lines of inquiry have been pursued.
10. In relation to the evidential stage, the prosecutor must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction based on the prosecutor’s objective assessment of the evidence, including the impact of any defence and any other information that the suspect has put forward or on which they might rely. Factors taken into account include the admissibility, reliability and credibility of the evidence.
11. Where there is sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution or to offer an out-of-court disposal, prosecutors must go on to consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. A prosecution will usually take place unless the prosecutor is satisfied that there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which outweigh those tending in favour or that justice can be property served by accepting an out-of-court disposal.
12. In applying the Code, the CPS has a duty to keep its decisions under review in light of any further relevant information or evidence received.
13. The CPS has published legal guidance on domestic abuse (Domestic Abuse Guidelines for Prosecutors - updated: 28 April 2020). The guidance sets out that the CPS regards domestic abuse offences as particularly serious. Domestic abuse has a broad definition and, as such, prosecutors should focus on the specific facts of each case when reviewing the case and making a charging decision. The guidance recognises that men can be victims of domestic abuse perpetrated by women.
14. The guidance also states that the starting point is to build a case in which the prosecution does not need to rely upon the victim but should ensure that the views of the complainant are balanced with this approach and are not overlooked. It notes that, even in circumstances where a victim does not wish to support a prosecution, if the evidential stage is passed then it will be rare for the public interest stage not to be met.
The events leading to the decision to charge Caroline Flack
15. Officers from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) were called to Ms Flack’s address in the early hours of 12 December 2019 following a 999 call from her boyfriend Lewis Burton claiming that he had a “cracked head”, that Ms Flack was assaulting him and was “breaking stuff”. During the call Ms Flack self-harmed and Mr Burton asked for an ambulance, having previously said one was not needed. He was also recorded telling Ms Flack that she was trying to kill him. She replied that Mr Burton was trying to kill her and had ruined her life. Police officers who attended the scene had functioning Body Worn cameras. The footage from those cameras (hereafter referred to as Body Worn Footage) showed that there had been a disturbance in the property and that both Ms Flack and Mr Burton had blood on them. The latter had a visible injury to his head. Their unsolicited conversations were recorded on the footage. The attending officers also made statements recording their interactions with Mr Burton and Ms Flack.
16. Mr Burton told officers that he had been asleep when Ms Flack had “smashed something over my head”. He said he had been hit with a lamp. He later suggested Ms Flack had hit him with a desk fan. Mr Burton also pointed to a cut and said that Ms Flack had “sliced him with the glass as well”. Later he said, “I really need to go, this is mad she just tried to fucking kill me” and “my life was nearly over”. Ms Flack had injuries to her wrist. She accused Mr Burton of cheating, became verbally aggressive towards him and had to be restrained by officers. Ms Flack admitted that she had struck Mr Burton; at one point demonstrating how by making a swinging motion with her right arm.
17. Ms Flack was arrested at the property and then taken to hospital for medical treatment. Whilst there she was assessed by the psychiatric team and determined to be a low risk to herself and denied any suicidal and self harm thoughts. Ms Flack was discharged and taken to Holborn Police Station where she was held in custody. During the evening of 12 December 2019, MPS detectives interviewed Ms Flack under caution and in the presence of her solicitor. Shown the Body Worn Footage, Ms Flack rejected the account given by Mr Burton on that footage. She explained that both she and Mr Burton were drunk at the time. Ms Flack accepted that she had caused the injury to Mr Burton’s head and seen the bleeding, and that he was asleep at the time she struck him. She said that she had hit Mr Burton with her hand in which she was holding a mobile telephone but that there had been no intention to hurt him; she had been reckless. Ms Flack believed that Mr Burton had made a 999 call to the police to hurt her. That had caused her to become very upset and self-harm. Ms Flack told the interviewing officers that she had never been diagnosed with mental health problems.
18. On 13 December 2019 the MPS referred the matter to CPS Direct for a charging decision. This was the first point at which the CPS became involved. A Senior Crown Prosecutor (SCP) in CPS Direct, upon review of the available information, determined that Ms Flack should be cautioned for the offence.
19. The Director’s Guidance on Charging provides that the police, if they disagree with a proposed outcome, can appeal the decision of the CPS and request that the matter be escalated to a legal manager. Here, the MPS appealed the decision to dispose of the case by way of a caution on 13 December 2019. A District Crown Prosecutor (DCP) in CPS Direct therefore undertook a review on the same day, confirmed that all outstanding reasonable lines of inquiry had been pursued and came to a different view concluding that a caution was not an appropriate disposal. A charge of assault by beating under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 was authorised. The police were also advised that the grounds for seeking a remand in custody were not sustainable. The CPS recommended bail with conditions of non-contact and non-association.
20. That same day, Ms Flack was charged by the police as authorised and bailed to attend Highbury Magistrates’ Court on 23 December 2019 for a first hearing. There were two conditions of bail: that she not contact Mr Burton directly or indirectly and that she not go to his home address.
Progress of the case following charge
21. Shortly before the first hearing, it emerged that Ms Flack had potentially breached her bail conditions by seeking to contact Mr Burton indirectly through Instagram. The MPS determined that no action would be taken other than speaking to Ms Flack’s solicitors with words of advice. No further breaches occurred.
22. District Judge Newton dealt with the first hearing of the case on 23 December 2019. Ms Flack attended together with her legal representatives. She entered a plea of not guilty and the matter was adjourned for trial to 4 March 2020. The CPS advocate made an application that the two conditions of bail previously set by the MPS should remain in place. This was informed by a risk assessment undertaken by the MPS addressing the risk of the commission of further offences. The availability of such an assessment assists the Court to determine what bail conditions are appropriate. As the MPS had not provided an assessment in writing, the officer in the case (the “OIC” i.e. the police officer with lead responsibility for the investigation) provided an assessment over the telephone to the CPS advocate that was then communicated to the judge. The OIC assessed Ms Flack as presenting a medium-risk of re-offending. The District Judge was not persuaded by representations made on Ms Flack’s behalf not to impose a condition of non-contact with Mr Burton. Ms Flack was granted bail on the same conditions as previously imposed.
Handling of the case by the local CPS Area
23. CPS Direct had no further involvement following the decision to charge Ms Flack. The case was transferred to my team and, in accordance with usual practice, allocated to a SCP (hereafter referred to as the reviewing prosecutor) in the Unit. In accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and in light of further information and representations received from BCL and from solicitors, Kingsley Napley, instructed by Mr Burton, the case was kept under continuous review.
24. There were six CPS reviews between 15 December 2019 and 13 February 2020. These considered the evidence and representations received. The case was also considered at three Local Case Management Panels (LCMPs), involving the reviewing prosecutor, two DCPs from the unit and a Senior District Crown Prosecutor. I was present at one of these LCMPs. There was therefore managerial oversight of decisions taken including the steps needed to prepare for the trial. During this period, three letters containing representations were received from BCL on behalf of Ms Flack and three from Kingsley Napley on behalf of Mr Burton. These were all considered and responded to promptly.
25. The first letter from BCL, dated 16 December 2019, whilst recognising that this was a case of domestic abuse, submitted that the prosecution ought to be withdrawn because the Full Code Test was not satisfied. In a letter sent the following day, BCL disclosed that Ms Flack was standing down from her role as the presenter of Love Island, which, it was submitted, was a significant change of circumstances justifying further review. BCL’s last letter, dated 20 December 2019, invited the CPS to consider the option of a caution. At this point BCL provided a report from a consultant psychiatrist. Given that Ms Flack’s mental health may be of particular interest to the coronial investigation, I address this report in more detail below. In response to the correspondence from BCL the CPS explained that it had reviewed the case in light of the further information provided and concluded that the Full Code Test was met and the prosecution would proceed.
The Full Code Test - evidential stage
26. From the point where the matter was first referred to CPS Direct, our task when considering this aspect of the Full Code Test was to assess the primary evidence and material provided by the police. For the reason explained above and to avoid repetition, I will not go into the detail of that primary material here. In this case, starting from the DCP review on 13 December 2019 and continuing through to when the matter was transferred to CPS North London Area, the assessment was and remained that there was a realistic prospect of conviction having regard to:
a. The content of Mr Burton’s 999 call;
b. The content of the Body Worn Footage;
c. The nature of the injury to Mr Burton;
d. Ms Flack’s admission at the scene and her answers when interviewed;
e. The statements of police officers who attended at the scene.
27. It was recognised from the outset that Mr Burton was unwilling to cooperate with a prosecution and so, absent a change of position on his part, would not be likely to make a statement or give evidence at a trial. Nonetheless, there was a realistic prospect of conviction because the case could be presented on the admissible evidence gathered by the police and without the need to obtain further evidence from Mr Burton. This is known as an evidence led prosecution.
The Full Code Test – Public Interest stage
28. Again starting with the DCP review on 13 December 2019 and continuing through, and having regard in particular to the guidance on Domestic Abuse, the CPS overall assessment was that this aspect of the Full Code Test was and remained satisfied given the matters detailed below.
29. First, the circumstances were serious. They concerned an assault with a weapon on someone who was asleep and therefore defenceless at the time. The result was a noticeable injury which, fortunately, was not as severe as it might have been. It was an aggravating feature of the offence that Ms Flack was intoxicated at the time. The CPS published guidance on Charging Standards for Offences Against the Person (which includes common assault contrary to of the Criminal Justice Act 1988) notes in relation to offences involving Domestic Abuse that the domestic context of the offending behaviour makes the offending more serious because it represents a violation of the trust and security that normally exists between people in an intimate or family relationship.
30. Second, there was no suggestion that Ms Flack lacked capacity in terms of the offending. There was no issue over her age i.e. she was a mature woman.
31. Third, at the time of the charging decision there was nothing to suggest that Ms Flack was suffering from a mental illness when the assault occurred. In the immediate aftermath of her arrest, Ms Flack had undergone a psychiatric assessment and been discharged to the custody of the police. She had legal representation at her police interview and, as far as the CPS was aware, no issue was raised as to her ability to participate in that interview.
32. As part of the duty of continuous review, the CPS considered further representations received which raised the issue of Ms Flack’s health. BCL’s letter of 16 December 2019 attached a one page letter from Tim Smale, the founder of an organisation called Mindworks. He identified himself as a clinical hypnotherapist and stated that he had been treating Ms Flack for a stress related condition based around trust issues relating to her relationships. Mr Smale expressed the view that the work he was doing with Ms Flack might be “set back by a criminal charge (however valid)”.
33. Subsequently and as mentioned above, on 20 December 2019, BCL sent a report from a consultant psychiatrist, Dr Jonathan Garabette, to the CPS. The report was dated 17 December 2019 (albeit it gave the date of examination as 18 December). Dr Garabette explained that the report had been requested for potential use not only in the criminal proceedings against Ms Flack but also in prospective civil proceedings against a former partner, Andrew Brady, for harassment and breach of a non-disclosure agreement. BCL had not sought the report; rather it was a different solicitor’s firm acting on behalf of Ms Flack (presumably in relation to the civil proceedings).
34. Ms Flack told Dr Garabette (who was without any medical records) that she had suffered past episodes of depression which were treated with anti-depressants but had had no other diagnosed mental health conditions. She said that she did not feel that she was suffering from any mental health difficulties immediately prior to the events of 12 December 2019. Dr Garabette makes no mention of the work of Mr Smale.
35. Dr Garabette concluded that, at the time of his examination, Ms Flack was presenting with an acute deterioration in mental state since the events leading to her arrest, which had been worsened by the emergence of the alleged harassment behaviour from Mr Brady. The report noted that Ms Flack had been recently prescribed medication for symptoms of anxiety and so presented as less acutely agitated and anxious than had recently been described by another clinician. Dr Garabette’s opinion was that the most appropriate diagnosis for Ms Flack’s present condition was an Unspecified Trauma and Stressor related disorder. He would not make an additional diagnosis that Ms Flack was currently suffering from a depressive episode.
36. While prepared for dual proceedings, the psychiatric report focused significantly on the alleged ongoing harassment from Mr Brady. Dr Garabette opined that, in the event of a criminal court finding that Ms Flack had acted aggressively or impulsively towards Mr Burton, then any such behaviour could be linked back to the relationship with Mr Brady, which might assist the court in understanding Ms Flack’s actions. Dr Garabette continued that Mr Brady’s alleged behaviour was contributing very significantly to the intensity of Ms Flack’s anxiety levels and the diagnosis he had made. Were that behaviour and the associate media attention to end then Ms Flack’s current symptoms were likely to improve. As to the impact of the criminal proceedings, Dr Garabette concluded that Ms Flack was likely to remain vulnerable to further deterioration for the duration of the criminal case given that the harassment from Mr Brady was likely to continue and possibly intensify. Dr Garabette did not record that Ms Flack had been or was currently expressing any suicidal ideation. He made no comment on the decision to prosecute Ms Flack nor on her capacity to participate in the criminal proceedings.
37. In considering this report the CPS had regard to its guidance, Mental Health: Suspects and Defendants with Mental Health Conditions or Disorders (as published 14 October 2019). Whilst it was recognised that defendants can find criminal proceedings stressful, it was concluded that Ms Flack had not been diagnosed with a mental health illness and was not taking any medication at the time of the offence being committed. The issues raised by Dr Garabette did not undermine the overall assessment under the Full Code Test.
38. For completeness, I add that, on 29 December 2019, Andrew Brady made contact with the CPS. He indicated a wish to provide evidence concerning Ms Flack. By this time there were press reports about the NDA that Mr Brady had signed. The OIC was asked to make further enquiries. On 4 February 2020, Mr Brady confirmed to the CPS that he did not wish to formally pursue any allegations against Ms Flack in light of the NDA and her management team. He did not provide a witness statement but provided an overview of the dynamics of their relationship.
39. Fourth, Mr Burton’s views were taken into account including by way of an independent review undertaken by a DCP. The views of a complainant are not determinative of the decision to continue with a prosecution. Domestic abuse cases are often the kind of cases where the victim is reluctant to assist with a prosecution.
40. As I have indicated above, it was appreciated from the beginning that Mr Burton did not wish to assist a prosecution. That was a point on which BCL relied in their correspondence. Mr Burton directly, and then in correspondence from Kingsley Napley, reiterated his wish that the criminal proceedings be discontinued. His representations relied on his concerns over Ms Flack’s career and wellbeing and the effect that ongoing press attention was having on his own mental health and ability to work. Mr Burton also provided a Victim Personal Statement, dated 20 December 2019. His views were considered against the available police evidence and the applicable guidance. It was noted that Mr Burton did not say that the statements he made in the 999 call and on the Body Worn Footage were untrue. It was also relevant that the CPS had no intention to call Mr Burton, a point communicated to Kingsley Napley. The overall assessment therefore was that the Full Code Test remained satisfied.
41. Fifth, the decision to proceed with a prosecution was a proportionate response having regard to the public interest including the likely outcome should the case result in a conviction. The fact that a defendant might suffer career damage or attract press attention are matters outside the control of the CPS and more relevant to mitigation.
The option of a caution
42. Upon appeal CPS Direct reversed the decision to authorise a caution. BCL subsequently invited consideration of that caution. A caution was not appropriate in this case not only because of the seriousness of the offence (outlined above) but also given:
a. Offences of Domestic Abuse are treated with particular seriousness;
b. Guidance makes clear that where the evidential stage of the Full Code Test has been satisfied, it will rarely be appropriate to deal with a case by way of a simple caution in cases of domestic violence and abuse (Simple Cautions for Adult Offenders”, 13 April 2015, §41; Domestic Abuse Guidelines for Prosecutors);
c. An admission of guilt to having committed the offence is necessary for a caution. Here, while Ms Flack had admitted to hitting Mr Burton with a mobile telephone, there had not been (and never was) a clear and reliable admission of guilt as she claimed the incident was accidental and furthermore she sought to justify her actions on the basis Mr Burton had cheated on her.
Other matters
43. Following receipt of Dr Garabette’s report, it was agreed that the CPS might need to instruct its own expert should BCL indicate that further expert evidence would be served. In fact, BCL did not disclose any further expert or medical evidence after 20 December 2019. Ms Flack’s legal representatives and her management company did not provide further information regarding any further deterioration in her health beyond that set out by Dr Garabette. On 20 January 2020, BCL served a written application for proceedings to be stayed as a result of an abuse of process. The CPS responded to this on 13 February 2020. The abuse of process argument had not been listed for a preliminary hearing and the expectation was that it would be dealt with as a preliminary matter on the first day of trial. The abuse of process argument did not refer further to Ms Flack’s health.
Conclusion
As an organisation the CPS seeks to make decisions fairly and independently, uninfluenced by factors such as the gender or the public profile of a defendant. Our task is to assess the available evidence on a case specific basis taking account of the relevant guidance and to apply the Code for Crown Prosecutors. Having in the course of this statement had opportunity to consider the primary evidence and the representations received by the CPS, I remain satisfied that the decision to prosecute Ms Flack was properly made in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. As an organisation and individuals we recognise the impact that the loss of a loved one will have on a family. It is important to us to be able to conclude here by offering our condolences to Ms Flack’s family.
I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.
Signed: ……………………………
Print name: Lisa Ramsarran
Date: 28th July 2020