A married couple was charged with damaging a luxury hotel to the tune of more than £2,000, but their case was dropped as a result of mistakes made by the Crown Prosecution Service, the court heard.
James Sweeney, 40, and Emma Sweeney, 42, claimed they were “spiked” after drinking at a Wetherspoon’s pub before the incident at the Hyatt Regency on September 8 of last year, which was captured on camera and widely circulated at the time.
Assault and criminal damage charges were brought against them, and Emma was also accused of sexual assault, all of which the pair vigorously denied.
However, a court has dismissed the case due to the prosecutors’ refusal to provide the evidence that was utilised in the police investigation.
Evidence that was not provided to the defence, according to the court, included cellphone video of the event that was presented to the suspects during their police interviews and a statement from one of the investigating officers.
The court was informed that the case had a lot of delays and obstacles, which meant that over a year had passed since the occurrence.
The couple’s efforts to get a “out of court disposition” by volunteering to make restitution and accept restricted restrictions led to one of the defeats.
At before 11.30 p.m., Mr. Sweeney was seen on surveillance footage at Birmingham’s four-star Hyatt Regency Hotel covered in blood and surrounded by smashed glass.
Oh yes, oh f***ing yeah, yells a lady who is thought to be Mrs. Sweeney as her husband, who was wearing shorts and a t-shirt, gets to his feet.
Before Mr. Sweeney put his foot through the glass, one employee cautioned coworkers that “he’s going to try and kick the door again” and another stated, “These are tougher doors.”
When the door was destroyed by the power of the kicks, hotel staff, who had previously served as the Prime Minister’s headquarters for Tory party conferences, were observed standing in disbelief.
The guy was then forced to the ground by a Broad Street warden and another security officer while someone yelled, “Where are the police?”
A lady who was pinned to the ground outside the hotel and thought to be Mrs. Sweeney wailed in the background.
The guy frantically begged for aid while he was being pinned down on the ground. Get off me, it’s hurting me. Help me, help, you b*****ds, please, someone assist me, he continued.
Then, two policemen showed in and inquired, “He’s shattered all this?”
He has, a hotel employee retorted.
The pair claimed they had been spiked while out drinking when they were caught and then charged with a number of offences, which they vehemently disputed.
Although the complete circumstances of the case were never revealed, the allegations claimed that two glass doors were damaged to the tune of $2,160.
Due to “failings” from the CPS, who had refused the pair’s efforts to settle the issue out of court and opted to prosecute the charges, the case utterly disintegrated as it was about to go to trial on Tuesday, August 30.
After the court denied their request for a further adjournment, the public agency failed to properly disclose all of the information to the defence in a timely manner and did not present any evidence in the case.
The glass was smashed by the intensity of the man’s kicks, shocking the staff at the hotel (pictured), which served as the Prime Minister’s headquarters for Tory party conferences.
After being cleared of the charges, the Erdington couple looked distraught as they left Birmingham Crown Court.
The defendants disputed the charges due to “excessive force and involuntary intoxication,” according to Sara Wyeth, who is defending Emma Sweeney. She confirmed that the latter referenced their assumption that their drinks had been spiked at a JD Wetherspoon pub earlier.
She said that a court order issued only last week regarding the disclosure of evidence had not been followed by the CPS.
An outstanding statement from a police officer who had withheld it because they were on yearly vacation was one of the main causes of contention.
Missing cell phone video of the event that Emma Sweeney claimed to have seen during her police interview was another problem.
The disclosure in this situation, according to Ms. Wyeth, was insufficient. The method used to bring us before the court and how the disclosure procedure was handled were both insufficient.
“It will soon be a year, and the prosecution has not addressed serving its case.”
“My client, who has an excellent reputation, is the subject of severe claims, and this is an unfortunate situation.” No material has been distributed. After a year, she is still paying privately for the pleasure.
James Sweeney’s attorney reiterated the claims on his behalf.
The delay in the case between the incident’s date and March of this year, according to prosecutor Mouzam Razaq, was caused by a “out of court disposal being contemplated.”
He stated: “As far as the police and prosecution are concerned, there are conflicting perspectives with regard to practically every accusation and have been from the beginning of the case because the police were handling it.”
Mr. Razaq argued that the matter should be postponed further by citing the “notoriety” of the event, which was at the time covered by Birmingham Live.
The placement of the offences is crucial, he stated. The city’s core is a well-known location.
“The event between James and Emma Sweeney itself garnered interest from a sizeable portion of the general public as well as the local press.
It will have an impact on confidence not just for people who work there but also for those who visit and have jobs supporting this institution.
District Judge Michelle Smith noted the seriousness of the charges but came to the conclusion that there was “no explanation for the prosecution shortcomings” and decided that postponing the case would not be “in the interest of justice.”
She attested to the dismissal of all allegations against the defendants.
Representatives of the defendants acknowledged that they will file a claim for expenses against the CPS.