From BBC News, 15 April:
Police are yet to identify a group of men who raped a woman outside a church in Surrey, four days after the incident.
The woman, in her 20s, was followed after leaving Labyrinth Epsom nightclub and attacked by several men outside Epsom Methodist Church in the early hours on Saturday.
The allegation was here reported as fact, but it relied purely on the woman’s account; and on 18 April, Surrey Police announced that after reviewing “an extensive amount of CCTV footage” and “interviewing potential witnesses, carrying out forensics investigations and conducting house-to-house enquiries” no evidence could be found. The investigation has now concluded, with police stating that the offence had not occured, and that the woman had given a “confused report” following an “accidential head injury”. In the meantime, Epsom has experienced public disorder orchestrated by right-wing elements led by Danny Tommo, most notoriously with a home for vulnerable adults coming under attack in the mistaken belief that it was housing refugees. (1)
The initial BBC report could very reasonably have begun with “Police are yet to identify any suspects after a woman reported that she had been raped by a group of men outside a church in Surrey”. However, it was perhaps natural to take the woman’s account at face value: everyone knows there are false accusers – Carl Beech, Ellie Williams – but signalling a position of agnosticism might have come across as pedantic scepticism and as downplaying a serious crime with similarities to a recent genuine case in Brighton. Also, the woman was not accusing anyone specifically, and so there was no need to be mindful of the rights of a suspect.
Naturally, the case attracted commentary from opportunists: on 16 April, Reform UK’s Robert Jenrick was quick to demand that Surrey Police “share what they can about the horrific rape in Epsom”, the implication being that they might be remiss in doing so. Jenrick referred back to the Southport killings, stating that “the authorities were silent” and that this made “a bad situation worse”. This of course ignores that the police were limited in what they could say, and that one thing that made things “worse” was Nigel Farage suggesting a cover-up and giving spurious credibility to an online rumour. (2)
In this way, Jenrick invited the public draw adverse inferences from the fact that Surrey Police did not have anything to share – and once again, suspicion and disinformation flourished. On Twitter/X, CCTV images from an unrelated 2025 case in Humberside did the rounds as supposed images of Epsom suspects; they were debunked, but the high-profile Reform-adjacent activist David Atherton then addressed Surrey Police with the claim “I have just been sent images which purport to show the suspects from the gang rape in Epsom.” He went on: “Can I DM them to you for verification. No one is going to be shocked, if true.” Were these the same Humberside images, or something else? Atherton never clarified, although by claiming to be in the know he helped to whip things up while increasing his profile.
Next, on 21 April, a police officer answering questions from a hostile and abusive crowd in Epsom referred to the woman “the victim”. More properly, she ought to have said “the complainant”, but at this stage it would have sounded pointed and suggestive of scepticism, and it might have riled up the mob (3). The clip was exploited as a “gotcha” by Dan Wootton, with Atherton suggesting that it meant the police had lied about not having any evidence.
“Head injury” may be a strong defence against a charge of wasting police time, but some may feel that it is not a satisfactory resolution. Conspiracists have a window for contining to claim there has been a cover up, although more reasonably we might infer that the police would prefer not to prosecute in case it deters genuine victims from coming forward in future.
UPDATE: There’s a useful overview from Alan Rusbridger in Prospect.
Notes
1. Tommy Robinson was not present, but happily noted that a protestors had “hit a suspected HMO [House in Multiple Occupation] housing unvetted migrant men”.
2. Jenrick also cites Jonathan Hall KC, the government’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, who was quoted as saying that “I personally think that more information could have been put out safely without compromising potential criminal proceedings”. Hall, though, was unhelpfully vague about what information he meant exactly. Farage claims to have been vindicated by Hall – even though Hall was concerned with police countering the kind of disinformation that he was promoting.
3. The 2016 Henriques Report, by Sir Richard Henriques KC in the wake of the Operation Midland fiasco, criticised police procedures that instructed officers to automatically “believe” complainants, and recommended using the word “complainant” rather than “victim”. However, old habits die hard, and when presented with someone in distress who says she has just been attacked any sympathetic person might find it difficult to suspend belief.
Filed under: Uncategorized | 7 Comments »
