Essex Police were called to reports of an incident on the morning of October 24.
Manpreet Callo, 30, from Waltham Abbey, has since been charged with assault by beating.
He is due in Chelmsford Magistrates’ Court tomorrow (December 3).
He is a serving officer with the City of London Police and has been suspended since the time of his arrest.
Thousands of defendants in England and Wales will lose the right to a jury trial under government plans to tackle the spiralling courts backlog.
Sarah Sackman, the courts minister, told The Observer the proposal for a new intermediate court, involving a judge and two magistrates rather than 12 members of the public, was “an idea whose time has come”.
She said it was “absolutely shocking” that some rape victims are being told that their case will not be heard until 2029 because of delays in the system and she would do “whatever it takes” to speed up delivery of justice.
There are now a record 78,000 cases in the crown court backlog, leading to long delays for defendants and complainants. More than 4,000 of these are adult rape cases, a 70% increase on the number waiting two years ago.
The crisis in the courts is also contributing to overcrowding in prisons because around a fifth of those in jail are on remand awaiting trial.
“The state’s obligation is to deliver a fair trial,” Sackman said. “Timeliness is an inherent essential ingredient of fairness and when those delays reach the level that they have reached today, that is detrimental to the quality of justice that we are delivering to the public.”
At the moment, the most serious cases are heard in the crown court and the most minor are dealt with by magistrates, but there are a large number of “either way” cases where defendants can choose whether or not to be tried by a jury. This is leading to long delays for the most serious crimes because the courts are being clogged up with more minor offences.
Sackman said that in a “broken” criminal justice system defendants had an incentive to opt for a jury trial “because it puts off your trial date and my view is that more and more defendants are gaming the system because they believe, rightly, that victims and witnesses will pull out so maybe that day will never come”.
The “witness attrition” rate of people quitting proceedings caused 325 prosecutions out of 4,317 to collapse last year, compared with 62 in 2019. “We should prioritise swift justice over the defendant’s right to elect their mode of trial,” the minister added.
Her comments come as the government prepares to respond to a report published earlier this year by the retired judge Sir Brian Leveson, in which he recommended the creation of the intermediate division of the crown court. He also called for the introduction of judge-only trials for complex fraud cases and warned that without radical reform, there was “a real risk of total system collapse in the near future”.
The proposals have already provoked a furious political and legal backlash. Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, described the proposals as a “slippery slope” to abandoning jury trials altogether. The Criminal Bar Association (CBA), which represents practising barristers in courts across England and Wales, is also opposed to the idea of curtailing the right of defendants to choose to have their case heard by 12 of their peers.
“The criminal justice system is not just under strain – it is buckling and on the brink of collapse. As criminal barristers, we know that sound decisions are based on the careful consideration of all the relevant evidence,” said Riel Karmy-Jones, CBA chair. “There may be a temptation to reach for ‘radical solutions’ to alleviate the crisis. The motives behind that may be well-meaning, but it ignores much of the evidence, not least of the faith which the public have in the system of trial by jury.”
A survey of its members found that more than 90% are against plans to remove the right to a jury trial for all but the most serious offences.
However, the plan for an intermediate court is supported by five former lord chancellors, both Labour and Conservative, and two former lord chief justices.
Sackman insisted jury trials had been “a cornerstone of British justice since time immemorial” and would remain for the most serious crimes. But she said 90% of criminal cases were already heard without a jury trial, in the magistrates’ courts. “The debate that we’re having here is about where is the appropriate and the proportionate place to draw the line. Is a jury trial appropriate in a year-long trial for complex fraud involving cryptocurrency? Is a jury trial appropriate and proportionate for the theft of a Mars bar?”
The minister recently visited Canada, which operates judge-only trials for some cases and said she was “hugely impressed” by the efficiency and fairness of the process. “It is a totally normal feature of the Canadian system, and it works really well. There is no one who would say that the Canadian justice system doesn’t deliver justice for the Canadian public.” Judges also told her that juryless trials halved the time it took for a case to be heard.
Her trip to Toronto had convinced her that it was “right to prioritise the swifter justice that the public expects over the defendant’s right to elect for a jury trial in every single case that they can do now,” she said. “Everyone agrees that the status quo cannot hold. The justice system that was built decades ago isn’t fit for the way in which we deal with justice today because of the volume of cases coming into the system but also because of the nature of crime and evidence.”
(My View)
How Can They Stop a Jury Trial When It’s Meant to Be Fair and Equal?
Looking at the Case of Andrew Malkinson — and the Bigger Problems With Jury Service
Our justice system is supposed to be built on fairness. A jury trial is meant to be one of the strongest protections we have: ordinary people, listening to the same evidence, deciding together whether someone is guilty or innocent. But if it’s meant to be fair and equal, why does it fail so often?
Look at Andrew Malkinson, who spent 17 years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit. He lost nearly everything—his freedom, his relationships, his future—and when the truth finally came out, the system offered him an apology. But an apology doesn’t give a man back almost two decades of his life. It doesn’t repair the damage or undo the suffering. And Malkinson is not the only one. Innocent people are still being found guilty, only to be released decades later with nothing but a letter saying “sorry.”
So how does this keep happening?
One major problem is the jury system itself. The truth is, most jury members have no legal knowledge at all. They’re everyday people who may never have set foot inside a courtroom before the day they’re selected. They don’t understand legal language, they don’t always grasp how evidence should be weighed, and they certainly aren’t trained to recognise when something in the process feels wrong.
And then there’s pressure—real, human pressure inside the jury room.
Earlier this year, a documentary called “Jury: Murder Trial” showed just how intense that pressure can be. In the programme, two separate juries heard the exact same case. The first group found the defendant guilty. The second group found him not guilty. Same evidence. Same story. Completely different outcomes.
Why? Because the people inside each room were different—and some of them felt intimidated, pushed, or influenced by stronger voices on the jury. When ordinary people with no legal training are put in a room together and told to decide someone’s fate, intimidation can happen. Peer pressure can happen. People can be pushed into agreeing with a verdict they don’t truly believe.
How is that justice? How is that fair?
If someone’s entire life is on the line, shouldn’t the people deciding that life at least have the basic knowledge to do the job properly?
That’s why I believe that jury members should have a crash course in basic law before they serve. Not a full degree, but enough to understand how the system works, what their responsibilities are, and how to analyse evidence properly. Instead, we have random members of the public—like Mrs. Smith from the corner shop—expected to make legally complex decisions with no training at all.
Maybe it’s time to rethink the whole system.
Maybe juries should consist of trained citizens or professionals who understand the law.
Maybe then we would see fewer mistakes, fewer wrongful convictions, and fewer destroyed lives.
Because right now, innocent people are still being found guilty, and justice depends too much on luck—who gets picked, who speaks the loudest, and who feels pressured to go along with the crowd.
And that’s not good enough.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has today published the report by Chris Henley KC into the organisation’s handling of the Andrew Malkinson case.
The report, which was commissioned by the CCRC and which was shared with Mr Malkinson in May, contains nine recommendations.
The Commission’s actions in response to those recommendations have also been shared with Mr Malkinson and are published with the report today. Work on implementing the recommendations is underway.
While the report contains redactions to safeguard ongoing investigations or the possible prosecution of an alternative suspect, Mr Henley’s recommendations regarding the CCRC’s handling of Andrew Malkinson’s applications are carried in full.
Redactions to the report were made after the Commission sought the views of the Andrew Malkinson Inquiry, led by Her Honour Judge Sarah Munro KC, Greater Manchester Police, the Crown Prosecution Service, and the Independent Office for Police Conduct.
CCRC Chairman Helen Pitcher OBE apologised to Mr Malkinson earlier this year for the organisation’s handling of his case.
OR peter sullivan
The victim of a 38-year miscarriage of justice has claimed he was beaten by police officers and "bullied" into falsely admitting murder, in his first interview since his release.
Peter Sullivan told the BBC he believes he was "stitched up" in 1986 over the killing of Diane Sindall, who was ambushed and beaten to death during a frenzied sexual attack in Birkenhead, Wirral.
Mr Sullivan, who has learning difficulties, had his conviction quashed by the Court of Appeal in May after new DNA tests were carried out.
He now wants an apology from Merseyside Police. The force said while it "regretted" that a "grave miscarriage of justice" had taken place, it maintained its officers acted within the law at the time.
Earlier the force said it had referred itself to watchdog the Independent Office for Police Conduct for a second time based on Mr Sullivan's comments - having initially done so in May after the appeal decision.
Speaking from an undisclosed location with his face hidden to protect his privacy, Mr Sullivan, 68, said he wanted an explanation for why detectives "picked me out".
"I can't forgive them for what they've done to me, because it's going to be there for the rest of my life," he said, adding he had "lost everything" since going to prison.
"I've got to carry that burden until I can get an apology."
For decades Mr Sullivan and his family were haunted by tabloid press nicknames, including "The Beast of Birkenhead", "The Mersey Ripper", and "The Wolfman".
"The names, they'll always stick with me because I've never been anything like that," he said.
Mr Sullivan said despite moments of near hopelessness, he was always supported by his parents who died years before he could clear his name.
He said: "My mum turned around to me before she died, and said, 'I want you to carry on fighting this case because you've done nothing wrong'."
In one of many painful moments from his time behind bars, Mr Sullivan said he was denied permission to attend his mother's funeral in 2013 because she was buried in the same cemetery as Miss Sindall.
His ordeal began after the semi-naked body of 21-year-old florist Miss Sindall was found with catastrophic injuries in an alley off Borough Road, Birkenhead, on 2 August 1986.
Two weeks later, her partially burned clothing was found on Bidston Hill, a large area of woodland about an hour's walk from the alley.
After a BBC Crimewatch appeal was aired, witnesses came forward claiming to have seen Mr Sullivan in a pub near the murder scene that night, while others reported seeing a man fitting his description near Bidston Hill the following day.
He was arrested on suspicion of murder on 23 September 1986, and was interviewed 22 times over the following four weeks.
For the first seven police interviews, he was denied legal advice and found the experience "very daunting".
"They were putting stuff into my mind, then they would send me back to my cell, then I'd come back and say what they wanted, not realising what I was doing at the time," he said.
During that period Mr Sullivan claimed he was beaten in his cell on two occasions by police officers.
"They threw a blanket over the top of me and they were hitting me on top of the blanket with the truncheons to try and get me to co-operate with them," he said.
"It really hurt, they were leathering me."
Mr Sullivan also claimed he was told if he did not confess he would be charged with "35 other rapes", and said he was denied food and sleep.
He was not provided with an appropriate adult to help him understand the interrogation, despite police custody records noting he had learning difficulties.
Asked why he would confess to a murder he did not commit, Mr Sullivan said: "All I can say, it was the bullying that forced me to throw my hands in, because I couldn't take it anymore."
Appeal court documents confirm that the first time he "confessed" was not recorded and no solicitor was present. Other police interviews were recorded.
In a statement for this article, Merseyside Police said it was previously unaware of the allegations about beatings or threats to charge him with other offences, and said records from the time did not contain details of this. It said guidance on appropriate adults had been strengthened since 1986.
The force accepted that legal advice was initially refused for interviews, adding that officers had feared revealing some parts of the investigation to a solicitor, in case evidence was destroyed. It also said Mr Sullivan was told he did not have to speak to officers unless he wished to do so.
Sarah Myatt, Mr Sullivan's solicitor of more than 20 years, sat alongside him as he spoke to the BBC. "I think, from what he's told me, he just reached breaking point with it," she said.
Mr Sullivan said during one interview he was asked to mark on a map where he had left the clothes on Bidston Hill.
When he pointed to the wrong place, he alleges a detective replied: "Come on Peter, you know better than that," before hinting at the "correct" location.
Ms Myatt said on the maps of Bidston Hill, Mr Sullivan had later written "this is all lies".
"I think that's quite poignant," she said.
Merseyside Police said the maps and transcripts, which the BBC has not seen, were all served on the courts. The force said interviewing officers had been "trying to understand the validity of his admissions".
While Mr Sullivan later retracted his confessions, the police and prosecution also relied on bite mark evidence, a now widely discredited field of forensic science.
That case, brought before DNA testing was widely available, was enough to convince a jury at Liverpool Crown Court - and on 5 November 1987 he went from a self-confessed "petty thief" to a convicted murderer.
Recalling the guilty verdicts, Mr Sullivan said: "My sister collapsed in the courtroom and the next minute, that was it.
"I was taken down from the courtroom and I just sat in that cell and cried my eyes out over the crime I hadn't done.
"I knew from then on that this is going to be one hell of a case to try and fight to try and get myself out of this situation."
His sentence carried a minimum term of 16 years before he was eligible to apply for parole - but Mr Sullivan maintained his innocence, lessening his chances of release.
Prison was particularly difficult for someone considered a savage killer and a sex offender. "I've been battered in prisons because of the crime I was in for," he said.
However, he said reporting such violence was not an option because "then you're a grass, and that means then you're going to get a lot worse".
The end of his nightmare began in 2023, when the Criminal Cases Review Commission - the body set up to check for miscarriages of justice - ordered fresh testing of semen samples found on Miss Sindall's body in 1986.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided not to challenge the DNA results ahead of a fresh appeal - paving the way for Mr Sullivan's freedom.
In May 2025, when the appeal judgement was handed down, Mr Sullivan was listening via video-link from HMP Wakefield, sitting next to his probation officer.
"When they came back in with the verdict that my case had been quashed, [the probation officer] burst into tears first," he said.
"She turned around and said, 'Peter, you're going home'...
"Next minute, bang, all the tears started running down my face and that was it, I went, 'yes, justice has been done'."
The outside world has been a baffling place for a man who went into custody when Margaret Thatcher was prime minister and the internet was unheard of.
Speaking of the moment he was driven out of prison, he said: "I was watching the cars go by, and I've never seen so many different cars in my life on that road.
"It was daunting just seeing them all changed and everything."
Since his release, he has sometimes found himself standing in his bedroom waiting for a prison officer to do a roll-call - a difficult habit to shake after nearly 40 years.
Mr Sullivan said he feels "really sorry" for the family of Miss Sindall, who he said are "back at square one" in their fight for justice.
"I've been through the same pain, being in prison, because I've been taken away from my family as well for something I haven't done," he said.
Merseyside Police said due to the "substantial changes" in the law and investigative practices since 1986, there would be "little benefit" in any formal review of how the case was investigated.
It said "no misconduct was identified" at the time of the first IOPC referral in May, but confirmed it would ask the body to look again after Mr Sullivan's interview.
The Crown Prosecution Service said while the Court of Appeal accepted the new DNA testing, other grounds of appeal were rejected. Nick Price, its director of legal services, said: "The prosecution case was brought on the basis of all the evidence available to us at the time."
The case of Miss Sindall's murder has been re-opened, although no arrests have been made.
For Mr Sullivan, there remains the wait for compensation, capped by the government at £1.3m for wrongful convictions.
Ms Myatt, who is helping him with his application, said: "There's not a figure that you could say would be enough for losing 38 years of your life."
please take your time to understand the law if you are picked.~
at the moment there is no justice. it is on the breaking point.
