03/02/2020 Economou v David De Freitas (Rev 1) [2016] EWHC 1853 (QB) (27 July 2016) [13] She added that she would welcome the opportunity then to meet her family and said the circumstances regarding the case were "rare, extremely difficult and always complex and sensitive. This case was one of the most difficult I have seen… … [14] … But the police eventually told De Freitas they could not proceed further as there was not a realistic chance of a successful conviction, partly due to the fact she had reported the alleged rape some time after the event and as such no forensic evidence had been collected to support her claims. The alleged perpetrator was told there would be no further action and the case was closed. … [15] … Lawyers for the CPS announced they were taking over the case against De Freitas. Her trial was due to open on 7 April. … [16] On Friday, Hariet Wistrich, of Birnbeg Peirce and Partners, acting on behalf of the De Freitas family, will call for the West London coroner, Chinyere Inyama, to widen the inquest to consider whether the Crown Prosecution Service breached Article 2 of the Human Rights Act- the right to life- by failing to abide by its own code and consider whether there was a public interest in prosecuting De Freitas before going ahead with the prosecution. [17] Deborah Coles, co-director of the charity Inquest, said: "This case raises serious issues of concern regarding the prosecution of rape complainants. In addition, Eleanor had severe mental health issues which do not appear to have been taken into account by the Crown Prosecution Service. There must be robust scrutiny at the inquest to explore how these issues of public interest impacted on her life." [18] Adam Pemberton, assistant chief executive of the charity Victim Support, said the "tragic and troubling case" raised broader concerns about the use of private prosecutions against rape complainants. [19] "We are concerned in principle about someone who has been accused of rape being able to bring a private prosecution against the complainant because this allows that individual to use the law to do something guaranteed to intimidate their accuser," he said." 54. Mr Economou complains of the sentence in bold in paragraph [4]. Paragraphs [5]-[7] are substantially identical to the passages complained of in the First Guardian Article. Mr Economou does not complain of their appearance in the Second Guardian Article, but they do represent part of the context for the words of which he does complain. 55. At 22:34 on the evening of 7 November 2014 an article appeared on the website of the Daily Mail, www.dailymail.co.uk. This article ("the First Mail Article") was headed "Wealthy financier who Eleanor de Freitas said was a rapist offers sympathy to family, saying her death was a 'very unfortunate event'". The article, which was a long one, contained some words attributed to Mr de Freitas speaking "after inquest into daughter's case". Mr Economou does not complain of the First Mail Article. It is relevant to Identification and Serious Harm because, unlike the two Guardian articles and the two BBC broadcasts, it identified Mr Economou by name as the person who "launched private prosecution against Eleanor de Freitas because she had accused him of rape". It is also relevant to note that the article said that "Despite being told he would not face charges Mr Economou paid for his own inquiry in an attempt to show he was innocent … The whole process is said to have cost him £200,000". 56. The Second Guardian Article was published in hard copy in The Guardian dated 8 November 2014, containing all the words I have set out above. The hard copy version will have been available for purchase from early on 8 November, or possibly late on 7 November 2014 at some outlets. Discussion www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2016/1853.htm 15/58