About The Case
During Jemma’s trial, numerous stories and headlines made the mainstream press. Many of these stories were sensationalised to make for eye-catching news and many of the statements made were misleading; some were completely false. 

This is the real story of the case, evidencing why these stories were misleading and why Jemma’s conviction was contentious, despite what the media would have you believe.

We trust you appreciate the need for us to share the facts of this case.

Background

Jemma was charged and found guilty of four counts of Perjury and four counts of Perverting the Course of Justice, in relation to four incidents across three years, in which Jemma accused three men. Not fifteen separate men, not fifteen separate occasions, as was widely reported.

In the pre-trial hearing in March 2016, an application was made by the defence for severance (an order for a separate trial to be held for the perjury offences). The prosecution argued that severance of the charges would mean that there would be no case to answer against Jemma, as taken individually, each charge would not be brought to court.

There were eight separate charges against Jemma. Juries are rarely asked to consider more than five charges in a single case. In fact, the Ministry of Justice Survey “Are Juries Fair” reports this as just 11% of juries.

The judge did not accept that given the charges relate to multiple and separate incidents across three years, this would make the trial too complex and potentially cause prejudice to Jemma. 

Perjury charges

The four counts of Perjury were in relation to one incident involving Mahab Kassim Kerow, who also goes by the surname of Cassim. This man was found guilty in a court of law in 2012 of the rape of Jemma in 2010.

Perjury is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.

The Perjury charges were instigated due to an alleged confession by Jemma to her ex-girlfriend Anuska Pritchard. According to Pritchard, Jemma confessed that the rape did not occur, although Pritchard chose not to tell this to Police for over two years.

There were two Perjury charges for (a) claiming she was raped and (b) answering 'no' when asked if she had ever had 'consensual sexual activity with a man' because she is a lesbian. As there were two trials against Cassim, these two charges were duplicated for each trial, making a total of four counts of Perjury.


Perverting the Course of Justice

Two of the Perverting the Course of Justice counts were in relation to one incident involving Noam Shahzad. Jemma accused him of one incident of sexual assault. When interviewed, Jemma explained the build up to the assault and mentioned Shahzad had grabbed her crotch earlier in the evening. The Police then charged Shahzad with two counts of sexual assault, despite Jemma not making a complaint about the earlier incident. Therefore, this led to two counts of Perverting the Course of Justice against Jemma when she was found guilty.

The third and fourth counts of Perverting the Course of Justice, were for two separate incidents, one with Luke Williams and one against an unknown man never found or charged.

The Police commenced an investigation into Jemma, codenamed "Operation Vicarage", simply because they did not believe it was possible for a women to be sexually assaulted four times in three years. "Inherently improbable" was the phrase widely quoted by the Crown Prosecution Service. However, the Mumsnet survey "We Believe You", which received 1,600 respondents, sadly shows that 23% of women who had been sexually assaulted, suffered on four or more occasions. More recently the #MeToo campaign, encouraging individuals to speak out about sexual assault and inappropriate behaviour, received over half a million tweets and over 12 million posts on Facebook, just in one day.



Unreported defence facts and anomalies in the evidence

There were many facts that the media did not make widely publically known. You will see that the three men accused by Jemma have a chequered past, yet were believed as witnesses in a court of law. You will read that the witnesses for the Crown Prosecution Service had motives against Jemma, yet there were no defence witnesses during the trial, only Jemma.

Three Men Accused

Mahab Kassim Kerow (aka Mahad Cassim)

Knowing that he was wanted by the Police, Mahad Cassim went on the run for nine months. He claims he did not know why he was wanted, but when told by a friend the morning after the incident, Cassim replies "for what, rape?".

When finally arrested, Cassim goes to great lengths in interview, repeatedly stating how Jemma was too drunk to consent. Cassim claims that no sexual intercourse had occurred.

When he was informed semen DNA taken from Jemma matched his DNA, he changed his story to one of consensual sexual intercourse. This is evidence that Cassim lied, under oath.
In the first trial against Cassim, the Jury could not reach a majority decision. In the second trial, the Jury reached a unanimous guilty verdict.

The Perjury charges against Jemma were based on her sexuality, as the Police and CPS now claim it was Jemma's sexuality that caused Cassim to be found guilty. Jemma's sexuality formed the basis as to whether or not she was raped.

However, this does not stand to reason, as at the time of the Cassim trial, the Police and CPS believed Cassim was found guilty due to the additional lies that were exposed and the additional evidence shown in Court during the second trial, not Jemma's sexuality.

The version of events according to the Police, were widely reported. Including their belief that Jemma led Cassim to the garages for sex, with Cassim claiming Jemma told him to "get your pants off". When you consider that Jemma had only met Cassim a few hours earlier and the statement from Andrew Hewett, a prosecution witness who confessed to sexually taking advantage of Jemma purely for his own gratification. 

Hewett clearly states that Jemma would not let him touch her at all, she was "not confident in her own body to let me touch her". Not confident with Hewett, her older cousin, who she has known all of her life; yet the Police claim she led men who she had only just met, to garages for sex.

He only gave evidence in Court on the basis that the papers could not name him or identify him as a relative. An empty promise by the Police and CPS, considering any reporting restrictions would not apply when the trial ends. 

Details of his grooming of Jemma in Court, was contradictory to the details within his Police statement. In his statement, Hewett said that Jemma was 20, making these incidents after the assault by Cassim; but in Court he said she was 16, making him 24 at the time and these incidents now occurring before the assault by Cassim. 

HRH Lorraine-Smith, when summing up the trial, referred to the evidence given by the cousin, as "deeply disturbing" and directed the Jury not to use his evidence in the deliberation of charges related to Cassim.


Noam Shahzad

Identified by DNA from a hat matching his details on the Police National Computer. When Police arrived at his home, they were told Shahzad was not home; but they found him hiding in the toilet.

In interview, as is his right, he stated "no comment" to any questions relating to the assault on Jemma. His DNA, CCTV and his credit card prove he was in the same public house as Jemma.

The prosecution claim that CCTV footage shows that Jemma was not assaulted. This is disputed by the defence, because the footage does not cover the location Jemma was assaulted. There is an eight minute gap of Jemma last being seen on CCTV before the assault and first seen on CCTV after the assault.

Three local residents state at the time of the incident, they heard a women crying loudly, with one of them also stating they heard a group of men singing, as if at a football match. In a Police interview, Jemma states the men were shouting the name of their gang; the Police officer interviewing her described this shouting as "chanting". Chanting is a common occurrence at every football match. 

The prosecution claim DNA proves Jemma used the wire baskets on herself. The defence refute this claim, as the baskets were subject to two sets of different DNA tests by Police forensic experts. Both tests came back with the same response. One basket did not have any of Jemma's DNA on it. The second basket had a very small amount of DNA. This contained the DNA from two different people, one from Jemma and one unknown. 

The defence is supported further as Jemma had urinated near the location of the basket, but the amount of DNA found was too small to define if it was from urine. Yet if the wounds inflicted on Jemma were from these wire baskets, there would be a larger amount of DNA found, in more than one area of the basket.

The men that assaulted Jemma also stole her mobile phone, from which they answered a call from Jemma's father, whilst assaulting Jemma. This is what prompted her father to immediately call the Police. When Jemma was found and the Police arrived, the first two officers confirm they heard Jemma's father arguing on the phone. He was arguing with the attackers, who were goading him about the assault on his daughter. When he handed the phone to the Police, they listened shortly, informed the man on the phone they were the Police; at which point the man promptly hung up and did not answer the phone again.

Shahzad failed to attend Court, jumping bail and fleeing to Pakistan. It is believed Shahzad is still on the run in Pakistan.


Luke Williams

Luke Williams has been accused of and charged with, committing numerous sexual offences including rape, since 2010; four of these reported before assaulting Jemma and three reported during the three years after assaulting Jemma.

There are seven documented allegations within six years, from different women and children against Williams.

Although he has many convictions to his name, he has never been convicted of any of the allegations of sexual assault or rape. He is also known to have four false names: Luke Alexander; Dean Axton; Dean Davis and Luke Eugene Williams.

There were many references of sympathy for Williams written across the press and social media, of how he has been on bail for two years. Two years in which more allegations of sexual assault and rape from unconnected women/children were made against him.

The last known charges are for sexual activity with a child, making threats to kill, criminal damage and witness intimidation, in June 2016, with further charges added in October 2016 and a trial at Isleworth Crown Court for these in February 2017; less than four months before testifying in Court against Jemma.

One victim did not attend Court, the child was too scared to continue and Williams walked free again. 

Two of the rape allegations were discussed openly in Court and in front of the Jury.

A third allegation was not allowed to also be discussed in Court, because the investigating officer did not believe the assault had occurred, because there was limited Police records and because Williams had not been informed of the allegation.

Cross examination of the two allegations discussed lasted a whole morning, included very frank and graphic details of the allegations from two girls, in which Williams was accused and charged. Yet having heard the graphic details, the Jury found Jemma guilty of the charge relating to Williams. They believed his version of consensual sex.

There are many proven lies within Williams statements: arguments, no drink, the position of consensual sex and a visit to the local Police station to hand himself in, which has been verified as a lie by the Police officer leading the investigation against Jemma.

Major emphasis was placed on Williams not being able to arrange a gang assault, as his mobile phone was still retained by the Police, in relation to a previous charge. A number of hours was spent in a local pub, where all were attending a party. It is claimed that Williams was on and off a mobile phone all night, both inside and outside the pub. 

No CCTV from the local pub has been disclosed to verify or disprove this.

Williams called a taxi company to arrange a taxi home. The name of the company was given to Police. No checks with the taxi company confirming who or what number called them has been disclosed.

When Williams was arrested for the allegation by Jemma in 2013, amongst his possessions seized, was an old Nokia mobile phone, which Williams admitted was his. No call history from his mobile has been disclosed to verify what calls had been made, to who.

When Williams was arrested in his van in October 2016, relating to another sexual assault allegation, the Police found three of William's phones; one being a Nokia. Williams was called as a witness for the prosecution and his version of events were believed by the Jury.

CPS Witnesses

Anuska Pritchard

Anuska Pritchard is an ex-girlfriend of Jemma's. She claims Jemma confessed to making a false rape allegation against Cassim, within weeks of him being found guilty.

Pritchard has never gone to the Police with details of the alleged 'confession'. If the Police had not contacted her in January 2014, after two years, it is unlikely she would have ever reported this to the Police.

Police were only made aware of this alleged confession following a police complaint made by Jemma's Mum in July 2012. She had been harassed by text by Anuska's Mum, Samantha Pritchard, who was also a witness for the prosecution.
Anuska has not stated in any of her interviews, that she informed her mother, father or anyone else, of Jemma's alleged confession.

Anuska sold her exclusive story to the papers before the Jury had reached a verdict. This is not illegal in any way, but highly concerning from an integrity perspective for the case. The story she sold claimed Jemma made a false allegation for money.

There are also many inconsistencies within Police interview statements from Anuska, her father John and her mother Samantha.


Samantha Pritchard

The mother of Anuska, who created the reason why Anuska suddenly makes the allegation of a confession from Jemma:
  1. A disgruntled Samantha comes to the conclusion Jemma has lied
  2. Samantha sends abusive text messages to Jemma and her Mum
  3. Jemma's Mum make's Police complaint about Samantha's abusive text message
  4. Samantha does not respond to Police calls or letter warning her to stop
  5. In over two years, Samantha never goes to the Police with her conclusion
  6. Police investigating Jemma see text message harassment details on PNC 
  7. Police visit Samantha and Anuska
  8. Anuska reveals for the first time, details of the alleged confession by Jemma
The following extract is from Samantha's Police statement:

"I came to the conclusion that Jemma had lied about that allegation".

This follows reference to an apparent social media conversation, where Samantha could not recall all of the content; but clearly remembers the full names of two of Jemma's friends, who she would never have met.

There is no reference in any of the Police statements from Anuska or Samantha or her father John, of Anuska telling them that Jemma had allegedly made this confession.

The alleged confession did not exist, it was the result of Samantha's conclusion, sent by abusive text messages, in turn reported to the Police by Jemma's Mum.

Samantha Pritchard, the same as Anuska, has never gone to the Police with details of the alleged 'conclusion' or 'confession'. If the Police had not contacted her in January 2014, after two years it is unlikely she also, would have ever reported this to the Police.

Samantha refers in her Police statement to:

"the only contact I have had from the Police was a letter which did in my opinion not look genuine. So I disregarded it and have not heard anything since".

This is the letter sent by the Police in July 2012, in relation to her text harassment, due to her not returning any of their calls.


Ben Stonehill

The apparent ex-boyfriend from when Jemma was 14 years old.

In relation to underaged sexual intercourse, a BBC legal site quotes the following: 

“The law sees it as sexual assault - it's a criminal offence. This is because in the eyes of the law we are unable to give informed consent to sex when still a child. A boy who has sex with a girl under 16 is breaking the law. Even if she agrees. If she is 13-15, the boy could go to prison for two years.” 

Jemma and Stonehill agree they had drunken sexual intercourse a couple of months after her 14 birthday. Jemma was 13 and Stonehill was 15 when they first met.

This was used as evidence by the CPS, to dispute Jemma's claim in the trials against Cassim, where she was asked "have you ever had consensual sexual activity with a male", to which she replied "no". Legally, at the age of 14, she could not give consent.

Stonehill’s first interview statement clearly states he had sexual intercourse with Jemma when she was 14 (within a few months of meeting her). Based on his admission he should have been arrested for rape when he made this statement. 


If he was arrested, there would not have been any credible new evidence in relation to Cassim; as everything else in relation to Cassim was used in the trials and conviction against him. 

If the Police had arrested Stonehill,there would not have been any perjury or perverting the course of justice charges against Jemma relating to Cassim. Without these  four Cassim charges against Jemma, it is very unlikely the CPS would have charged Jemma with anything. The whole ‘Operation Vicarage’ would have crashed to a grinding halt.


Investigation into private life

Revealing her sexuality as a lesbian in the trial against Cassim, according to the interpretation of law, serves as permission to conduct and publicly reveal an intrusive investigation into her private life and sexual history. The manner and publicity of this investigation was akin to committing rape; exposing her private life and removing her dignity. This investigation installed the fear and anger of not being believed and was hugely distressing for Jemma. 

Following the conviction of Cassim, in her victim impact statement, Jemma wrote: "the seven year sentence he received feels like nothing compared to the life sentence he has given me".

The fact that Jemma's private life, sexuality and sexual history was investigated and publicised represents a huge backwards step in the challenge of encouraging women to come forward and report rape and sexual assaults. By taking the decision to prosecute and publicly humiliate a rape victim, the Police and CPS have set back all Judiciary and Government attempts to increase the reporting and prosecution rates. The precedent now set will only increase and confirm the fears surrounding the reporting of these hideous crimes.

Beginning with a sensationalised and assumptive prosecution opening statement, with hard copy and online circulation via news websites and social media going global within days. An online search for Jemma returned 1.2million results, with sensationalised headlines and pictures found on thirty-six English speaking sites; with just seven of these sites displaying a total of 240,000 ‘shares/likes’ on social networks within days. Jemma's anonymity as a rape victim was removed.

Jemma was arrested in 2014 and charged in 2016, with the trial starting on the 30th May 2017, three full years after her arrest. Three years of disbelief, self doubt and fear. The trial lasted six weeks to the 6th July 2017.

The prejudicial headlines included "rape liar" and "lesbian liar", with inaccurate content, multiple pictures and reference to the village Jemma lived in; commenced in week two of her trial through to the end. Four weeks before the Jury reached a verdict. The inaccurate false headlines included, amongst many others, "Raped by 15 separate men", "Raped on 15 separate occasions" and "CCTV shows her arrive home safe".

Despite numerous flaws in the evidence provided and the fact that much of the verdict depended on the testimony of individuals who had clear motivation to damage Jemma’s case, she was found guilty of the eight charges against her. 

Jemma was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment; virtually the most severe sentence she could have received. Convicted rapists and murderers have been awarded shorter custodial sentences than this.

Despite all of the heartache and pain for our entire family, we hang on to the belief that we are 'lucky'. Lucky because we are able to visit Jemma, cuddle and comfort her, reassure her that she will come home one day, that they cannot stop the clock. Unfortunately there are parents who do not have this luxury, who would give their life for one more cuddle, one more smile. Our hearts go out to them.

Thank you for reading this information about Jemma’s trial. If you suspect that there is more to this trial than the media shared, we would be most grateful if you shared this amongst your network.

We are not asking for any commitment, but we hope you respect our quest for justice.
Share by: