A serving Metropolitan Police officer has been found not guilty of raping a woman he met at a bar while off-duty.
Jurors at Inner London Crown Court cleared Pc Rupert Edwards, 30, of raping the woman in Epsom, Surrey, on August 26 2022.
However, the jury was unable to return a verdict on a second count of rape, relating to a different woman whom Edwards met at a bar on September 5 2022.
Edwards wept in the dock as the jury’s verdict was returned following eight hours and 22 minutes of deliberation.
In a prepared statement given to police, Edwards said all sexual activity with the first claimant was consensual and at no point did she indicate that she was not consenting, the court previously heard.
Edwards told police the second complainant never said she did not want sexual intercourse without contraception, and that they engaged in consensual sexual activity.
Prosecutor Robert Brown previously told the court that the first complainant met Edwards on a night out and danced with him, before “kissing the defendant, who she found attractive” at a bar.
They later got a cab back to her home and had consensual sex “at least once, possibly twice”.
The complainant claimed she later told him “I can’t go again” but the defendant pulled her leg up and initiated further sexual intercourse, Mr Brown said.
Asked if the woman told him she did not want to have sex again because she was “tired and sore”, Edwards told the court: “I do not agree with that”.
The second complainant recalled engaging in consensual sex with Edwards in Lambeth, south London, but “told him from the outset there could be no intercourse” because they did not have any condoms.
The woman said Edwards agreed to this but she was later awoken when he raped her, jurors heard.
The prosecutor said: “Isn’t the truth that she said you couldn’t have sex because she had no condoms?” Edwards replied: “No”.
When pressed by Mr Brown, the suspended Pc said: “At no point was she asleep [during sex].”
Edwards said the woman had been a “similar level of drunk” to him, adding he was “shocked and surprised” to be arrested the next morning.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article