UK Court Frees Mrs. Agnes Taylor of “Rape and Torture”

Agnes Reeves-Taylor previously worked as a lecturer and head of department at Coventry University

The United Kingdom International Tribunal on Friday, December 6, 2019, dismissed torture charges against former Liberia leader’s ex-wife Agnes Taylor, who faced allegations that she conspired to use rape to torture women during the Liberian war in 1990.

The charges were dismissed at the Old Bailey, which is Central Criminal Court of England and Wales, located in London and one of a number of buildings housing the Crown Court, the BBC reported on Friday.

Agnes Reeves-Taylor, 54, was charged in 2017 over a string of offenses — some involving children — allegedly committed during Liberia’s civil war.

At the time of her arrest, she was a university lecturer from Dagenham in east London. She denied wrongdoing and was due to stand trial in January but, after a technical appeal, the Judge, Justice Sweeney, dismissed all charges against her.

Ms. Reeves-Taylor was due to face a trial for torture and conspiracy to torture, relating to events alleged to have taken place in 1990, during Liberia’s bloody civil war.

Up to 250,000 people are believed to have been killed during the civil conflict between 1989 and 2003. Ms. Reeves-Taylor’s ex-husband was Liberia’s president from 1997 until 2003, and is currently serving a life sentence for war crimes in Sierra Leone.

However, Mr. Justice Sweeney, ruled that the case against Agnes could no longer continue.

He said there was a lack of evidence that the Taylor regime had governmental control over the areas where Ms Taylor’s alleged crimes happened.

“This was a key test for conviction for torture in UK law — and therefore, Ms. Reeves-Taylor, had to be released from remand in prison, the Judge said.

What was Reeves-Taylor accused of?

Agnes Reeves-Taylor previously worked as a lecturer and head of department at Coventry University.

The eight allegations Ms. Reeves-Taylor faced concerned events in 1990, as the civil war raged across Liberia. The charges included conspiracy to commit torture by allegedly facilitating the rape of captive women by soldiers in Charles Taylor’s forces (National Patriotic Front of Liberia). It was further alleged that three of the torture allegations related to inflicting “severe pain or suffering,” including assaults on a 13-year-old boy.

The Old Bailey had also heard one allegation of torture related to a “pastor’s wife,” who had resisted being raped by one of Charles Taylor’s commanders.

Mr. Justice Sweeney said the evidence of that allegation was that Ms. Reeves-Taylor “ordered that the woman be tied [in a manner that caused pain amounting to torture].

The defendant then shot and killed the woman’s two young children, saying, ‘See if you refuse an order this will happen.’ She had denied she had been involved in any crimes.

In his ruling, Mr. Justice Sweeney said: “I have asked myself in relation to each count whether there is sufficient evidence taken at its reasonable height upon which a jury could properly conclude that at the time and location of each offense, the NPFL [Charles Taylor’s forces] was exercising governmental function in the relevant area.

“In my view, the answer in each instance is clearly in the negative.”

Ms. Reeves-Taylor smiled as she appeared in a video link from Bronzefield women’s prison in Surrey to hear the ruling.

Detectives at the Metropolitan Police’s war crimes unit began looking into her background in 2014, after receiving allegations from investigators working for two justice campaign groups in West Africa. The business lecturer was then arrested and charged in June 2017. Since then, she has fought to have the case dropped — and her lawyers have previously told the court that she had no official position in Charles Taylor’s regime.

Ms Reeves-Taylor has lived in the UK since 1998, but her future is now uncertain.

Agnes Taylor (far right) faced allegations that she conspired to use rape to torture women during the Liberian civil war.

War crimes, torture and British Law

Incidents amounting to war crimes committed abroad can be prosecuted in the UK under two different laws Section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, was used to try to prosecute Agnes Reeves-Taylor for torture.

The Supreme Court ruled that a jury must be sure that a defendant under this charge was both an official in a regime or government — and that the regime had some kind of administrative control in the area where the alleged crime happened.

This test could not be met in the Reeves-Taylor case.

The International Criminal Courts Act 2001 allows prosecutions for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. But it does not apply to events before 1991 – and so could not be used in the Reeves-Taylor case. While she is legally resident having claimed asylum, her application to settle permanently was refused under a Home Office rule that there were serious reasons to consider that she had, amongst other things, committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity.

Her appeal against that decision remains outstanding.

Emmanuelle Marchard, of Civitas Maxima, one of the two campaign groups that had assisted the Scotland Yard investigation, said the end of the case was “heartbreaking” for those who wanted their stories to be heard in a British court.

She added: “However, as a legal organization, we recognize the legal achievements of this case. In this sense, we welcome the decision that the UK Supreme Court delivered in November, which confirmed as a legal principle that members of non-State armed groups may be prosecuted for crimes of torture under UK law.”

And Charlie Loudon from Redress, a UK charity campaigning for war crimes justice, said while the result was “difficult,” it was clear that armed groups such as ISIS, and the Taliban could now be prosecuted for torture in a British court.

“The priority is that the UK continues to invest in prosecuting cases like this. For many victims across the world, their only hope for justice is through a British court,” Mr Loudon said.

A spokesperson for the Crown Prosecution Service, said the “landmark case” had helped define the boundaries of torture law in the UK.

The BBC has contacted Ms Reeves-Taylor’s representatives for comment, but there were no response until this newspaper went to bed.

Source: BBC


  1. Good for the UK court for dropping all charges against Miss Agnes Reeves Taylor. Miss Reeves-Taylor is an academic. Hopefully, she’ll return to the UK university where she once lectured. Of course, there are many opportunities out there for her. As an astute individual, it’s a sure bet that Miss Reeves-Taylor will choose to do what is right for herself, her family and her country.

  2. A One Sided Road

    They shouldn’t have convicted her in the first place. I don’t know anything about law, nor do I know law in the first place. However, there is a saying in law that says, “he/she that aide and abide by a criminal, himself is a criminal “. If this is truth, Madam Sirleaf need to be the first to face the court. Unless there is some big power behind her shielding her all the way. We Liberians are not questioning it at all. We Liberians, the victims of the war are on the side of the outsiders telling us who to persecute, and who to give free pass.
    A complete system of one sided road.

    • I do agree with u100 %, in this matter if she is exempted then I don’t see reason for Liberians requesting a word crime court to judge only one side.

  3. Based on her academic background and experience in the UK, Reeves-Taylor may choose to help the motherland in a meaningful way. Whatever she plans to do (as long as it is not destructive), may she be guided by the Almighty God.

  4. Flomo Domah,
    You just said it all. Giving free pass to some perpetrators and prosecuting others at the whelm of certain group, will not bring lasting peace in Liberia. We called that a “bought out peace”. Meaning, decision that is been made based on the silencing of certain quarters.
    Well, like Liberia, some of us are well known to be a good polishers. We can see the truth and decide to canvas HYPOCRISY. Whilst continue driving one side of the road.
    M. S .Bah NP (Nurse Practitioner). Meridian Health

  5. Bah,
    With all due respect, I disagree with you. Remember, a crime is a crime, but all criminal acts do not have the same weight. Secondly, in Reeves-Taylor’s situation, all charges were dropped because the plaintiffs failed to come up with concrete evidence. Also, the plaintiffs or witnesses presented circumstantial evidence, but not direct evidence. In cases of murder, circumstantial evidence is admissible, but direct evidence or primary information is usually preferred.

    Charles Taylor is locked up behind bars. The likelihood of Charles Taylor leaving his jail cell is almost zero. Why? His crime was more horrific than some people who took orders from him. Those who took orders from him (were, are criminals), but their crime does not take the same weight as Taylor’s.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here