A JUDGE has blasted prosecutors for serious failings in dealing with a rape case that he said had no prospect of leading to a conviction.

Homeless Jed Francis was acquitted by a jury of eight men and four women of raping a woman twice outside Oxford Magistrates’ Court in March last year.

After discharging the jury at Oxford Crown Court, Judge Peter Ross called the case “troubling” because of “serious failures” by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Judge Ross said he was far from convinced the CPS had dealt properly with the case, including at one point not even knowing when one of the alleged rapes took place.

He added: “The courts are told repeatedly by the CPS that there are specialist units to deal with these matters. These cases are to be treated with the utmost gravity, care and attention. The experience of the court in this case has revealed some pretty serious failures.”

Francis, 24, was accused of raping the woman while she was sleeping rough outside the court in Speedwell Street.

But at the close of the trial on Monday, Judge Ross said prosecutors should have realised they were making a woman with mental health problems go through a criminal trial with no prospect of a conviction.

A report released by the National Rape Monitoring Group last year showed 1,085 allegations of rape were made across the Thames Valley in 2014/15. But it also revealed that while 311 cases were referred to the CPS in 2014, only 61 resulted in a conviction.

Judge Ross said the police had been presented with an “almost impossible” case, but that CPS lawyers had not dealt with the material properly.

He said the police sexual assault log had not been disclosed to the defence during the trial and the CPS had not commissioned an expert to examine evidence of injuries to the woman’s genitals.

Judge Ross also criticised the CPS for failing to get swabs from Francis’ genitals tested. He said: “It seems to me that any reviewing lawyer should have seen immediately the import of any testing from those swabs.

“They might assist the Crown’s case, they may significantly assist the defendant’s case.

“We will not know, but the failure to be alive to this seems to me to be a matter where prosecutors are failing in their administration of justice role.”

The former prosecution barrister also condemned the CPS for not reviewing vital CCTV camera evidence and said: “Cursory examination by a reviewing lawyer would have revealed a) that there were things said by the complainant that simply couldn’t be right and b) that when it was said by her the second...rape took place it was actually physically impossible.”

He accused the CPS of going on a “voyage of discovery” during the case – not even knowing at one stage when one of alleged rapes took place.

He also hit out at the CPS for indicting Francis, of Long Readings Lane, Slough, under the wrong legislation – using the Sexual Offences Act 1956 instead of the new 2003 Sexual Offences Act.

He said: “The indictment – how long has the Sexual Offences Act 2003 been with us? The CPS indicted under the 1956 Act. Was that an indication of the care that was taken in relation to this case?”

CPS spokeswoman Louise Rosher stressed when the case was reviewed prosecutors were satisfied there was enough evidence to secure a conviction.

She added: “The CPS takes all allegations of this nature extremely seriously. We were satisfied that there was sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and it was in the public interest to prosecute.”

But she said commenting further would not be appropriate until the CPS had reviewed the case and responded directly to Judge Ross’ comments.