Trial farce continues for Tom Daley’s husband

Tom Daley’s husband will still face trial for throwing a drink over BBC presenter Teddy Edwards – despite police losing the recording of her interview.

Screenwriter Dustin Lance Black, 49, is charged with assaulting Ms Edwardes, 32, at a gay bar in Soho on 18 August last year.

Black was out with Mr Daley, 28, in the Freedom bar when he allegedly twisted Ms Edwardes’s wrist spilling a drink over her.

Ms Edwardes, who presents ‘The Big Proud Party Agency’ on BBC3, has accepted a caution for assault for punching Black on the head after the drink was spilled.

Black claims Edwardes was shouting at him and being aggressive and he grabbed the drink in self defence.

It was Black who called police to claim Ms Edwardes had punched him.

Black’s lawyer applied for his trial not to go ahead due to abuse of process as police have lost the tapes of Ms Edwardes being interviewed for assault ‘in the post.’

A statement from a member of bar staff was also lost.

Police bodyworn footage showing Ms Edwardes’ account at the scene is also not available as it was not saved by the officer within the required 28 day period.

The officer also did not write her witness statement about the event until a year after it happened.

District judge Louisa Ciecióra rejected the application and the trial will go ahead as planned on 8 November.

Black appeared at Westminster Magistrates’ Court via video-link from his Los Angeles home, where it was 2am in the morning.

His lawyer told the court that he had sole responsibility for caring for the couple’s two children in the home, Robbie, 5, and Phoenix who was born in March.

Black appeared on the videolink saying ‘Oh it works I think’ wearing a black jumper and black framed glasses and confirmed his name and date of birth.

Judge Ciecióra told him: ‘I gave you permission to attend via CVP because I thought you wanted to be here- but in fact you’re not needed to be here.

‘If you do wish to remain please switch your camera and microphone off.’

Black replied: ‘I appreciate it very much judge thank you’ and then turned off his camera for the rest of the hearing.

His lawyer Helena Duong told the court: ‘This is an application to stay proceedings as an abuse of process because we say the defendant can no longer receive a fair trial.

‘This is a case where there was duel investigation where the complainant and the defendant were both alleged victims and suspects at the same time.

‘It was Mr Black who first asked for the police to be called and they attended and spoke to both parties.

‘The primary loss of evidence is the loss of the recording of the complainant’s suspect interview which took place two or three weeks after the alleged assault.

‘It wasn’t simply that it got lost as it was transported through the postal system but that both the copy and the master were erroneously kept together in a case file and had not been properly logged on the system.

‘It’s not simply that it got lost in the post because had it only been a copy that was lost we would still have access to a master.

‘This is compounded by the absence of the recording of the complainant’s initial account of what happened to the attending officer.

Ms Duong suggested that Ms Edwardes may have been shown the CCTV footage by bar staff before her police interview.

‘About ten days after the alleged assault messages were received on social media- one message to Mr Black and one to his husband Mr Daley. One contained a clip of CCTV.

‘Also received was a message from someone who appears to be a former partner of the complainant who refers to having been shown the CCTV by the complainant.

‘The court might have to consider whether she was being truthful when she said the first time she saw the CCTV was in police interview.

‘Fact that there is a fairly short summary of what is a half hour police interview is insufficient for the court to properly assess the full credibility of the account of the complainant.’

Ms Duong suggested the CCTV footage shows Ms Edwardes’ hand on top of Black’s with supports his case.

She said that the Crown had initially decided that Mr Daley’s witness statement should not be disclosed to the defence but had been ordered to disclose it by the court.

‘We are dealing with what is a relatively low level allegation of assault and one where the defence submit there have been failings of very basic duties in what has not been a very complex investigation.

‘When one steps back and looks at the imbalance of the prosecutions of Mr Black and Ms Edwardes it can begin to feel a little like a persecution not a prosecution.

‘The crown have documented and obtained bodyworn footage of Mr Black’s comments at the scene and his interview.

‘I hope you can see on a fairly basic level a sense of unfairness that is more pronounced when one sees the manner in which the police have dealt with the investigation against Mr Black as opposed to the investigation against Ms Edwardes.

‘The detail is important because there is a number of different manners in which the complainant has alleged Mr Black has assaulted her and more importantly perhaps there is a reason why Ms Edwardes would want to embellish or exaggerate what Mr Black had done in order to justify the actions that she does on to take.

‘What the footage shows is – certainly an argument can be made that Ms Edwardes is the one shouting towards Mr Black – you see quite clearly she makes contact with him on his shoulder prior to him trying to walk away again.

‘There is a party of people with Ms Edwardes who effectively between them create a barrier.

‘Mr Black was trying to leave the venue and he will say that was because of the aggression that was shown.’

Prosecutor Adrita Ahmed admitted a number of mistakes had been made but said Black could still have a fair trial.

She said: ‘There is an interview summary that the officer says is true and accurate, there are other accounts the complainant has provided.

‘In relation to the suggestion that the complainant had viewed the CCTV before the interview- that by it’s very definition is a trial issue and can only be answered by the complainant giving evidence in the trial.

‘The summary of the interview is entirely in line with what Crown’s position has been which is that she has assaulted Mr Black- she’s accepted that from the start, she was responsible for assaulting him.

‘She did retaliate and as a result accepted a caution and that’s something she’s never hidden from.

‘The investigation into Ms Edwardes was obviously going to be different because she admitted guilt and accepted a caution.

‘He raised a lawful defence in his interview. So my learned friend’s comment of a persecution not a prosecution is incorrect.

‘Staying proceedings would amount to the prosecution being punished where a fair trial is still possible.’

Ruling that the trial should go ahead, Judge Ciecióra said: ‘I do consider it appropriate to note there have clearly been failures on behalf of the prosecution.

‘But the key issue is whether the defendant can have a fair trial.

‘I accept the defendant has lost an aspect to his defence but do not consider it is of such significance that without it the defendant is entirely without ammunition to advance his case.’

She added that there had been failings by the officer who attended the scene.

The judge said that given the officer’s other errors she did have concerns about aspects being left out of her interview summary.

She ordered the Crown to review all bodyworn footage and confirm it does not contain any accounts of witnesses that have not been disclosed.

Judge Ciecióra also asked if the Crown had reviewed all the evidence to rethink disclosure and Ms Ahmed said they had.

Black denies one charge of assault by beating.