Many have mourned over the death of the popular reality TV show host Caroline Flack, who sadly has taken her life. In December, Ms Flack was charged with assault after allegedly attacking her boyfriend at her home. Ms Flack pleaded ‘not guilty’ and her trial was due to take place in March 2020. Mr Burton (the alleged victim) did not support her prosecution.
As a result, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has been heavily criticised by Ms Flack’s management team for projecting a ‘show trial’ rather than it being a matter of domestic abuse. Thus, strongly believing the case was clearly without merit and not within the public’s interest.
Despite the criticism the CPS continued with the prosecution of Ms Flack. This raised the question of many as to WHY?
The CPS justified that decisions regardless of the type of crime committed it is based on the application of the two-stage test; in regards evidence present for a conviction and whether the case is a matter of public interest to prosecute. Not on the basis of the victim wishing to pursue charges or not as this is matter for the CPS.
Furthermore, a spokesperson on behalf of the prosecutors elaborated - “We do not decide whether a person is guilty of a criminal offence - that is for the jury, judge or magistrate - but we must make the key decision of whether a case should be put before a court,”
In my opinion, this should have been made clear from the outset that Ms Flack’s celebrity status did not have any significance in the decision to put the case before court; because if it had been an ordinary individual standing trial for domestic violence in the same circumstances the outcome would have been pursued in the same manner; regardless of the case being a high profile one, the CPS have set guidelines that they have to follow in regards how cases are pursued when a victim does not support the prosecution as well as cases concerning mental health conditions or disorders.
It is best to note we live in a society where social media has become the Judge and it has been raised that Ms Flack’s mental state has taken a toll for the worse with the distress caused by the media. Regardless of how individuals perceive the media, the media will continue to report whatever they like within the law, arguing it is what the public want to know and that celebrity life is already in the public eye so they have ‘consented’ to this as it is ‘part of their job’. But media coverage of Ms Flack’s case has resulted in the case being a high profile one, in which many people have inserted themselves to comment and critique on leading to the parties of the case possibly feeling invaded and stressed.
Ultimately, Ms Flack took her life before the trial date, and thus it could be argued that cases regarding DV should not have the alleged individuals named as it could out a significant amount of mental strain upon them. Parties in domestic violence cases being named for public records prior to the case going to trial or during trial could lead to the alleged attacker and alleged victim being attacked and persecuted both physically and/or mentally. The parties should have a right to protection from this while the case is ongoing.
As a society we avoid the need to address concerns regarding mental health and feel the need to pass on the blame of who caused the overburdening distress. It may not be a visible symptom of illness but mental health should be taken seriously. Just remember “Words once spoken can never be taken back”. So Be Kind.
