Eye-opener

It takes more than it did previously to shock or appall me, but my recent trip to Zambia did so. I first met Zambian sporting legend, Emmy Musonda, four years earlier. I interviewed him then unaware of the full extent of what he had gone through then. I wish I had known, as it would have explained a lot. Musonda was the former captain of the Chipolopolo, who led them to the third place at the Africa Cup of Nations in 1982.

He was understandably proud of that achievement. The interview was not at his home, began with him showing photos of his distinguished playing career. He told tales of his career, of other players, but did not mention something he should have said, or I should have known – the reason he lost it all. Emmy Musonda, one of his country’s greatest footballers, was reduced to quietly begging for food!

At the time, I was surprised, and a bit sceptical. Why was such a successful player, who said he had achieved so much – he had – begging for a meal? Even though the ‘riches’ in football wee nothing like they are today, and certainly not in Africa, this sounded odd. Had he squandered it all away? Absolutely not, it turned out. Emmy Musonda had been an elite level athlete. He had looked after his body, and he had planned for a future off the pitch.

Shameful

It had all been taken away from him through no fault of his own. In his second job as a coach his team’s bus crashed. It was the fault of the driver hired by that team. Musonda was very badly hurt. He was left brain-damaged. I didn’t know any of that when I interviewed him. You wouldn’t. Some of what he said, I thought strange and let it wash over me, but despite the odd views on some subjects, there were still pearls of football wisdom – ones he still wants to pass on.

I didn’t know then that he lived in a bad area of Lusaka – the one thing that team did for him. He was in no condition to look after his interests after the crash, and nobody did it for him. He was not advised to sue, nor could he. Football had been his life, but now, in his time of greatest need, it had deserted him, or so it seemed to Musonda, a man who wanted to make a living through football.

In the four years since we first met, things have got worse for the legendary Zambian defender. Two years ago he had to have his left leg amputated above the knee. Still football, now with great riches in the game, had not provided even for his basic needs. Diabetes is a killer, especially without treatment. Musonda cannot afford even that. He has no wheelchair, despite his obvious disability. The metal crutches he once had buckled, unable to support him. He now uses utterly unsuitable wooden crutches.

The Greater Picture

Still he does not have the ability to support himself. But it could and should be different. He can provide punditry, he can be a motivational speaker – what a story he has to tell – and much more besides. In an era of mega-wealthy and sometimes pampered footballers, let’s remember the other side of the football coin – players who put their bodies on the line, gave their all for meagre rewards, and paid a huge price. Let’s remember the Emmy Musondas of football.

His story is not just what has happened to him, or even how he has been and still is treated, it is what can and must be done for him and by him. He is an integral part of A Sporting Chance of After-care – Zambia. Even after, all he has been through Emmy Musonda wants to give his all to football and his country. He wants to inspire and caution young players and in schools too. He remains an inspiration, and legend, and appreciated beyond Zambia’s borders. See The Times’ Chief Football Writer, Henry Winter’s message of encouragement and appreciation to Musonda here (https://youtu.be/Qa02EICcQik).

Cometh the Hour

200 years ago today (June 18th 2015) the myth of Napoléon Bonaparteʼs military prowess was punctured once and for all on the fields of a small Belgian town – Waterloo. Napoléon staked his future and that of his empire on a final battle. However, he knew that he was fighting against time. He had to win a decisive victory before the Prussian leader Field-marshal Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher arrived with reinforcements. He failed to do so. Blücherʼs forces occupied the attentions of reinforcements that Napoléon desperately needed to fight Wellingtonʼs army. The rest is history.

Bonaparte failed to unite Europe under his rule. The course of European and indeed world history was determined that day.

Shamefully. The British government treated the veterans of Waterloo abysmally. There was no land fit for heroes. There was no gratitude. There were no jobs for them – they were offered as mercenaries to Latin-American revolutionaries. Among the beneficiaries of this was Simón Bolívar y Palacios. Bolívar paid tribute to the contribution of these soldiers to the eventual defeat of Spanish colonialism.

Wellington

Arthur Wellesley completed the final defeat of Bonaparte and with that ensured that France and its Emperor did not achieve primacy over Europe and probably the world. Britain went on to have the largest empire the world had ever seen. Waterloo played a pivotal part in facilitating the rise to empire of Britain and also ensuring that the French empire would never attain pre-eminence.

Early in his military career Wellesley bought promotions – a common practice at the time, yet he had military acumen. This was a rare combination. Wellesley was a gifted soldier – one of the finest defensive military commanders ever. He distinguished himself in many campaigns from India to the Peninsular Wars, culminating in his final defeat of Bonaparteʼs bluster. Wellesley was created the first Duke of Wellington after his success in the Peninsular War, which ended with the Battle of Toulouse in 1814.

Wellington went into politics, becoming Prime Minister twice, 1828-1830 and again for less than a month in 1834. He opposed the Reform Act of 1832, but three years earlier had been instrumental in ensuring that the Catholic Relief Act became law. Wellington went on to become the Leader of the House of Lords and the favourite of the young Queen Victoria. He died in 1852. He was given a state funeral.

Bonaparte

In February 1815 Napoléon Bonaparte escaped from Elba, drawing former supporters, including Marshall Michel Ney, later to play an important role in the defeat at Waterloo. Bonaparteʼs plan was to engage the British and Prussians separately and defeat both. After that he planned to reach an accommodation with the Russians and Austrians, but Blücherʼs arrival destroyed his plans.

Bonaparte blamed Ney in particular for the failure of his plan and Ney paid the heaviest price. The man Bonaparte dubbed the Bravest of the Brave was executed by firing squad in December 1815.

Napoléon Bonaparte was transported to exile in St Helena. His empire was over. He died in 1821.

Blücher

One of the most celebrated Prussians ever began his military career as an enemy – a Swedish hussar. Once recruited to the Prussian cause he remained loyal to it. He brooked no nonsense, even from his monarch. Denied a promotion to Major, Blücher left Prussian King Frederick the Great in no doubt what he thought with a deliberately rude resignation letter in 1773. Thirteen years later Frederick was dead. Blücher got his promotion.

He was respected by his troops as was Wellesley. He was rewarded by King Frederick III of Prussia for services during the Napoleonic Wars. Blücherʼs relationship with Weelington was crucial at Waterloo. Both knew they could rely on each other to unite for the final push that would seal Bonaparteʼs fate. After Waterloo Blücher was given lands in Silesia – now in Poland. He died at Krieblowitz in September 1819.

His remains were buried at huge mausoleum at Krobielowice in Poland. Shamefully his remains were desecrated by the Red Army in 1945, despite the role he had played in defeating Bonaparteʼs invasion of Russia and imperial plans over Europe.

Ashley first became involved in social justice in her home state of Kansas, in 2008. Outraged by the justice system, as well as the laws surrounding the death penalty in the United States, she quickly became engaged in anti-death penalty campaigns and contributed a significant amount of time to the Kansas Coalition Against the Death Penalty.

She then became politically active as well, fighting for various causes during her time in Kansas. During this time, she worked at the Writing Center of Wichita State University (WSU), helping undergraduate and graduate students to edit and improve their work. During her time at WSU, she completed her undergraduate degree in Philosophy.

Ashley first met Satish in 2010 when she moved to Switzerland and began editing work for the FIP, as well as other works from Satish (she edited his book The Cardiff Five: Innocent Beyond Any Doubt). She is currently working for eBay while continuing to edit both the FIP site and its publications. Meanwhile, Ashley is completing an Executive MBA at the University of St Gallen.

Raphael Rowe (Reporter for the BBC’s Panorama)

“Satish is a dedicated investigative journalist who worked hard to investigate the background to the jailing of the Cardiff Three for the 1988 murder of Lynette White. The success of their appeal against their convictions is largely down to his hard work. He wrote the story of this case and his subsequent campaign to have the case reinvestigated in his book ‘Fitted In: The Cardiff Three and the Lynette White Inquiry’. I wanted to write about the forensic aspects of the case in my book Cold Case Files – and he was very generous with his help”.

Liz Porter (Journalist at Sunday Age, Australia)

“Satish is extremely thorough in his investigations and is doggedly determined to get to the bottom of things. He is meticulous and has an eye for detail when looking at cases of miscarriages of justice.”

Lovejit Dhaliwal (Director of Sharp Curiosity Productions)

 “Satish is an excellent investigative journalist – very committed and persistent”.

Richard Keeble (Professor of Journalism at the University of Lincoln)

“Satish is an author of ‘Fitted In: The Cardiff 3 and the Lynette White Inquiry‘ and the recently published “The Cardiff Five: Innocent Beyond Any Doubt“. He is also a journalist, academic, researcher and expert, especially for those who have suffered miscarriages of justice. Although at times, Satish is highly critical of the criminal justice system, he only challenges from a position of desiring improvement for the benefit of all, whether they be the investigator or the investigated. Members of the criminal justice system as well as academia could well benefit from hearing the experiences and lessons learnt by Satish over the past 20 plus years of academic and field research that he has undertaken.

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera (Lecturer and Director of S-Team Consultancy)

“Satish is an outstanding journalist, researcher and author whose work has achieved justice for people who would otherwise have had no-one to defend them. His grasp of detail and tenacity is a model for all reporters.”

Alan Slingsby (Partner, Edition Periodicals)

“Satish is a dedicated investigator with a passion for justice, both to correct miscarriages to absolve the innocent, and to identify and bring the true perpetrator(s) to account. His dogged determination and indefatigable efforts to explore overlooked or disregarded facts and possibilities, and to publish his findings publicly, have made a significant contribution to the Criminal Justice System in Britain and abroad.”

Robert (Bob) Parsons (Forensic Chemist/Alcohol Toxicologist, Indian River Crime Laboratory, USA)

“In my dealings with Satish I found him to be reliable, extremely knowledgeable and passionate about his subject. His enthusiasm and commitment to the project of righting miscarriages of justice was highly commendable. He works very hard in this field and in ridding sport of racism.”

Alun Owen (Territory manager for Random House Publishers)

“Satish is an investigative journalist and has campaigned against the miscarriages of justice. He stays involved with the wrongfully convicted (and wrongly accused), even after proof of innocence, and works against racism. I would highly recommend Satish in his fields of expertise.”

Bill Pelke (President of The Journey of Hope…From Violence to Healing)

“I have worked with Satish on several occasions since the 1990s. I have always found him to be imaginative, diligent, resourceful, personable and a great team player.”

Geoff Small (P/D of Geoff Small Inc.)

“Satish is a diligent and conscientious journalist, who is trustworthy and very reliable”.

John McManus (Former Project Coordinator of The Miscarriages of Justice Organisation)

“Satish is hard-working and painstaking in all that he undertakes. His research is second to none. He pays significant attention to the important detail surrounding an issue which he will tenaciously advance whilst being open to the views of others.”

Stuart Hutton (Senior Partner at Hutton’s Solicitors & Advocates)

“Satish is an experienced human rights and civil liberties advocate and writer whose work has benefited many people. He works hard, is afraid of no-one and puts his heart and soul into fighting cases of injustice.”

Mark Metcalf (Freelance journalist, author and trustee of FIP)

 “Satish is reliable, informed, thorough, and dependable. And has proved to be a veritable one man army in the pursuit of justice on countless occasions.”

Derek Miller (Journalist and Editor)

“Satish Sekar’s meticulous attention to detail and dogged determination to pursue an objective was key to unravelling a complex murder case that had resulted in an appalling miscarriage of justice. His commitment to establishing the truth cannot be questioned.”

Martin Shipton (Chief Reporter of The Western Mail)

“Satish is an experienced and able author and investigative journalist with a long track record in campaigning against miscarriages of justice. He continues acting as a pressure group to alleviate the problems which those wrongfully convicted suffer in the long term, even after they have been vindicated. He is also actively involved in anti-racism initiatives, particularly in football, and seeks to improve racial equality by increasing the sporting opportunities available for disadvantaged groups.”

Dave Barclay (Retired Forensic Scientist)

Top qualities: Great Results, Expert, High Integrity
“Satish is a determined and meticulous researcher. His work is always reliable.”

Tim Gopsill (Former Editor of The Journalist)

Fired Up

Two days after Maxwell Confaitʼs body was discovered in April 1972 three fires got the policeʼs attention. They arrested 18-year-old Colin Lattimore. He quickly confessed to setting the fires with Ronald Leighton, then 15. 14-year-old Ahmet Salih was also arrested. Although Lattimore was 18 he had the IQ of an eight-year-old. All three were or should have been considered children in need of every protection the law had to offer. Lattimore quickly implicated his friends Leighton and Salih.

Contrary to the law even four decades ago, the children were interviewed without appropriate adults being present and claim that they were hit by police officers. They all confessed to arson at Doggett Road and other fires, Lattimore to the murder and Salih and Leighton to a robbery as well. Salih insisted that he was present, but had not taken part in the murder. They retracted their confessions, but it counted for nothing.

Rule of Thumb

All three claimed to have been the victims of police violence, but this occurred in the days when interviews were recorded by contemporaneous notes – the accuracy of which had to be taken on trust. Time would eventually prove that trust to be sadly misplaced in many cases illustrating the need for tape-recording or better still video-recording interviews.

A rule of thumb would be only those with something to hide could object to the recording of interviews. Recording of interviews, not only with suspects, but also witnesses is commonplace now and rightly so. It not only protects suspects or witnesses, but police from spurious accusations of malpractice. But it still needs an integrated approach to investigation, as forensic sciences can affect case-hypotheses. In this case it plainly would have done, but for a crass error by the Crownʼs pathologist Professor James Cameron.

Hopelessly Mistaken

Teare was adamant that Confaitʼs death could not have occurred later than 10.30 on April 21^st. Simpson agreed with Teare. They were right and they were wrong. Maxwell Confait did not die later than 10.30 that night. He died at least two days previously, so they were proved to be badly wrong, but that came later.

Nevertheless, the ʻmistakenʼ opinions of Teare and Simpson proved enough to result in a successful appeal as the new timings that they provided destroyed the case that the police had brought against the three young men they rushed to convict. It would later become clear that the forensic pathologists had got it hopelessly wrong.

The original pathologists had wrongly assumed that rigour mortis was just beginning after the fire. In fact, it had almost passed. Death had occurred over 48 hours earlier. The discolouration of organs supported that conclusion – something that experienced forensic pathologists Cameron, Teare and Simpson should never have missed.

Professors Alan Usher and Keith Mant opined that that due to organ discolouration death had occurred over 48 hours before the fire. They reached those conclusions for the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure. The fiasco over the timing of death had set the investigation down the wrong path and made a complete mockery of that investigation.

A Mockery

The fire was an enormous red herring. In fact, it was far worse. It may just explain the remarkable change of opinion of Professor Cameron as well. His original opinion suggested a likely time of death hours early than the one he sprang on the defence without warning at trial, but the original time posed serious problems for the police and prosecution.

His original opinion meant that the murderers had waited around for around three hours at least after killing Confait before starting the fire. That was utterly absurd. Why would anyone commit a murder, then wait around the scene for around three hours before deciding to start a fire there? If they had not done that then the subsequent fires evidence that Colin Lattimore and later Ronald Leighton and Ahmet Salih were arrested over was irrelevant and the police and prosecution must have known that this rendered their case-hypothesis ludicrous long before it came to trial and resulted in shameful convictions.

Despite investigations and a Royal Commission the conduct of the criminal justice system which allowed such a change of opinion to prejudice the Catford Threeʼs right to a fair trial yet again escaped censure for that (see Ambushed). It wasnʼt the only thing that the trial and appeal process got wrong – hopelessly wrong in fact.

Timings

In the early hours of April 22^nd 1972 a police surgeon pronounced mixed-race transvestite Maxwell Confait dead. A fire had just been extinguished at the Doggett Road residence in Catford, South-East London. This would prove to be one of Britain’s most shameful miscarriages of justice. The victim was unsympathetic as far as investigators and even the public were concerned and there were obvious angles to look into.

Establishing the time of death was important and the fire helped to do that, as long as it was linked to the murder. It was investigated as if that was a fact, but it wasn’t. The forensic pathology – horribly botched as it was should have made that clear from the beginning. Somehow, the significance of it was missed by everyone.

The time of death – admittedly a range – was given as earlier that night by the distinguished forensic pathologist James Cameron, who would later be severely criticised for his role in one of Australiaʼs most notorious miscarriages of justice Lindy and Michael Chamberlain – the Dingo Baby case.

At the trial in November 1972 Cameron moved it even further, saying it could have been as late as just half an hour before the fire was extinguished. This was necessary to explain the inexplicable. Why had brutal killers stayed around for hours and then started a fire there? And then knowing that they had done this why had they started some more in that area, knowing it would draw attention to themselves. This was the breakthrough information that led to the arrests and interrogative strategy.

But it was completely wrong. The fire had nothing to do with the murder. Professor Cameron’s original opinion was wrong. His change of opinion at the trial turned out to be even further wide of the mark than he had previously been. While timing death is not an exact science, especially over 40 years ago, Cameron did not check the organ for discolouration. If he had done so he would have realised that the fire had occurred over two days after Maxwell Confait was murdered – this was badly botched by Cameron to put it mildly.

Expert Errors

Cameron would prove to have eminent company in getting the time of this death badly wrong. Professor Donald Teare was one Britainʼs most eminent forensic pathologists at the time and so was Professor Keith Simpson. Both were very experienced and had distinguished themselves in their chosen field, but they too were involved in an investigation of a miscarriage of justice – one of the most notorious miscarriages of justice in any jurisdiction – Timothy Evans – another vindication case¹. Evans was wrongfully convicted and hanged in 1950².

Teare was the main pathologist in that case, which became a cause célèbre three years later when a resident at the same address, John Christie was exposed as a depraved serial killer rather than the respectable witness he had been portrayed as at Evansʼ trial.His colleagues Francis Camps and Keith Simpson were also involved, but Teareʼs role was the most controversial and despite his attempts to put right the Confait case, his error – also made by Simpson and Cameron – was crass for experts of such standing.

Damage Limitation

The Police Corruption Trial of the Century ended in farce on December 1^st 2011 – a nine year investigative process had resulted in convictions of three vulnerable witnesses and no others. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), prosecutor Nicholas Dean QC and defence lawyers – police even – all accepted that they had been forced to lie (see Duress and Another Injustice). Nevertheless, the law did not recognise the duress that they had suffered.

Mark Grommek, Angela Psaila and Learnne Vilday therefore had no choice but to plead guilty to perjuring themselves.¹ Having done so, they were treated leniently due to the bullying they had endured by police officers who had in the words of the judge used methods that were “unacceptable in a civilised society”.

The New Cardiff Three were sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. By March 2009 the CPS announced that 13 police officers (some of whom had retired) had been charged with a variety of offences including conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and perjury. Two witnesses also faced those charges. They had no intention of going down meekly. However, this would prove to be a poorly prepared prosecution marred by penny-pinching foolishness that would ultimately cost the public millions more and deprive us all of the accountability and answers we have waited years to discover.

The Judge

Despite the seriousness of the case it was destined to be heard in Swansea before Mr Justice (Sir Nigel) Sweeney. The judge had been involved in prosecuting a notorious crime – the Chillenden attack on the Russell family which left Lin Russell and her daughter Megan and dog Lucy dead and Josie Russell fighting for her life.

Sweeney knew that the Crownʼs pathologist – albeit subsequently discredited – suggested that there had been significant contact between the killer and a bootlace used to strangle the unfortunate Megan. There was no disputing that the contact was substantial and that the killerʼs DNA would have been on the lace, but Sweeney knew that Michael Stoneʼs DNA was not on that boot-lace. This was strong evidence of innocence, but a fanciful explanation was advanced and Stoneʼs defence accepted the Crownʼs willingness to stipulate that Stoneʼs DNA and fingerprints had not been discovered at the crime-scene.

The Crown claimed that Stone – a habitual drugs-user – had obtained the lace from another user and had used it to restrain Megan. Somehow despite putting substantial pressure through the lace onto his fingers he had not deposited his own DNA while both Meganʼs and the unknown drug-user he had allegedly obtained the lace from remained on it, or at least alleles (bands in the DNA testing system used did).

It was obvious that the far more probable explanation of the unidentified male DNA at the relevant points on the lace was that it had been shed by the killer. It was yet another example of a convenient interpretation of the DNA results – one that stretched credibility and most probably contributed to an egregious miscarriage of justice. Sweeney was either aware of the fanciful nature of the explanation that he relied on, or he should have been.

Precedent Ignored

Stone was convicted again in September 2001 and subsequently lost an appeal. An application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) failed to present the compelling scientific evidence of innocence. He remains in prison for very serious crimes that he did not commit in circumstances where strong evidence supporting his claims of innocence has never been heard by any court or even the CCRC.

By this time a very significant miscarriage of justice – a Dutch vindication case had thoroughly unravelled. The Schiedammer Parkmoord has been covered in considerable detail by us (see the various articles on that case). Astonishingly the significance and potential of that case remains largely ignored by supporters of Stone, lawyers and media all professing to champion his innocence even though the methods used in that case to prove the innocence of Kees Borsboom are plainly apt in Stoneʼs case.

Shamefully, the scope to prove him innocent remains ignored while an almost certainly innocent man languishes in prison while an expert who has first hand experience of the issues involved is denied the opportunity to test his claims of innocence. Sweeneyʼs role in securing this miscarriage of justice has never been subjected to public scrutiny. Over a decade later no media apart from us even mentions it, let alone investigates it.

Origins

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is over a quarter of a century old. It was established in 1986 by the Prosecution of Offences Act (1985), but why? Previously, the police were responsible not only for arresting suspects, but deciding whether they should be charged and prosecuted as well. It became clear that this was not an efficient system as inappropriate cases were prosecuted and occasionally cases that should have been prosecuted were not. An independent prosecuting authority was needed, but why then?

In part the answer lies in an egregious, but strangely neglected miscarriage of justice – a case that seemingly had it all. It was a nasty murder that involved a botched investigation by police and pathologists, shameful bullying of juvenile or otherwise vulnerable suspects, an intransigent criminal justice system and ultimate vindication of the wrongfully condemned. It was a case where tunnel vision overwhelmed the evidence-led approach, resulting in an egregious miscarriage of justice.

An Egregious Miscarriage of Justice

The Catford Three (Colin Lattimore, Ronald Leighton and Ahmet Salih) were wrongly convicted of the murder of mixed-race transvestite Maxwell Confait in November 1972. Eight months later their first appeal was rejected along with their claims of police brutality. A year later a change in government resulted in the convictions being referred back to the Court of Appeal.

By this time the scientific evidence – time of death – had collapsed. Professor Donald Teare put the time of death as significantly earlier, insisting that it must have been between 6.30-10.30. His distinguished colleague Professor Keith Simpson agreed. They would later be proved to be wrong by several hours, but that was no consolation to the police or prosecutor as their expert Professor James Cameron was even further out.

At the trial Cameron changed his time of death to possibly being as late as 1.00 a.m. – just 21 minutes before the fire was reported. This change of timing mangled the alibis of the three defendants who had prepared their defences for the earlier time of death that the police doctor and Cameron had previously said. That undermined the strength of alibis, especially Lattimore, who had a good alibi by ambush.

The retraction of their confessions counted for nought as well. They had been secured without a solicitor or even an appropriate adult being present. In 1975 the Court of Appeal quashed the convictions. Headed by Lord Justice (Sir Leslie) Scarman as he then was, the appeal judges criticised the policeʼs investigation and noted that the lack of injuries indicating a struggle suggested that Confait knew his killer.

Enquiries

Scarman took the rare step of declaring Lattimore, Leighton and Salih innocent. That prompted Roy Jenkins to re-open the inquiry, but Peter Fryer, who later became Assistant Chief Constable of West Mercia Police, failed to solve it. A full enquiry of the policing, especially regarding the effectiveness of the Judgeʼs Rules in the treatment of children and the vulnerable (then termed educationally sub-normal) was also ordered.

It was chaired by Mr Justice (Sir Henry) Fisher, who demanded and got the power to apportion guilt on the balance of probabilities if he wanted to – an outrageous concession that should never have been agreed to. Fisher made recommendations to the Judgeʼs Rules, but declared two of the Catford Three guilty.

He avoided libel proceedings as the report was returned to Parliament, which made it immune . It should not have been. Fisherʼs insistence on being allowed to declare people probably guilty when they were not should have had personal consequences, especially as the person responsible was a judge who should have known better – far better.

Fisherʼs serious error resulted in the Royal Commission of Criminal Procedure (1979-81). During that Commissionʼs investigation evidence emerged not only of the innocence of the Catford Three, but of who the real perpetrator was. Nevertheless, it was one that Fisher refused to apologise even when requested to by then Attorney General Sir Michael Havers.

Vindicated

That Royal Commission produced important legislation – the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) in 1984 and the Prosecution of Offences Act a year later. PACE became operational in 1986 and the Crown Prosecution Service was established that year as well. The CPS in particular would prove to be a terrible disappointment on many levels.

It also ended any doubt about the innocence or guilt of the Catford Three as it became an early vindication case – a miscarriage of justice that was resolved either by the conviction of the real killer, or if deceased by acceptance by the criminal justice system that the real perpetrator had been identified. That is what happened in this case.

The Royal Commissionʼs investigation established that Confait had in fact been murdered at least two days before the fire of April 22^nd 1972 which alerted police to Confaitʼs death. Professors Alan Usher and Keith Mant showed that through the discolouration of organs, which begs the question of how Cameron, Teare and Simpson – all distinguished forensic pathologists – missed something as obvious as that.

Detective Chief Superintendent E J George and Detective Chief Inspector Eddie Ellison identified not only the real murderer, but an accomplice and witness to the murder as well. They had interviewed Paul Pooley who admitted being in Confaitʼs Doggett Road abode when Douglas Franklin murdered the unfortunate Confait. Franklin, knowing the game was up, committed suicide shortly after being interviewed.

In February 1980 they presented their report to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Sir Michael Havers. It destroyed the case against Lattimore, Leighton and Salih once and for all. Havers made a statement to Parliament declaring the three innocent in August 1980. They had been vindicated, but it would take more than five years for the legislation born of that tragedy to result in the ʻindependentʼ prosecuting body, the CPS, opening for business.

Inconvenient Evidence

The case of the Catford Three (Colin Lattimore, Ronald Leighton and Ahmet Salih) is now acknowledged as of Britain’s pivotal miscarriages of justice – one that changed the criminal justice system. Their alibis – Lattimoreʼs was particularly strong – were treated as little more than an inconvenience to be overcome and this appears to explain the forensic pathologist Professor James Cameronʼs sudden change of opinion regarding the time of death.

Outrageously, Cameron waited until the trial was under-way to inform the defence during his evidence that he had changed his mind. Lattimoreʼs lawyers had prepared their defence of alibi on what they had been informed was the time of death that the police and prosecution were relying on. It was all they could do.

Ambush

They had no time to prepare for this change in the prosecution case or even get expert opinion to counter it. They were ambushed by Cameronʼs shifting of the goalposts at trial. It was outrageous and the judge should not have allowed it and nor should the Court of Appeal. Twenty years later the Court of Appeal famously said that it does not allow convictions secured by ambush in the shameful case of Judith Ward.

In its way this was worse as it was not even concealed – it was brazen. The court actually witnessed the ambush in progress and not only tolerated it, but rewarded it with the prize the prosecution sought. After an 18 day trial in November 1972 Lattimore was convicted of manslaughter due to diminished responsibility and Leighton of murder – Salih of the offences he confessed to. Lattimore and Leighton were convicted of the other offences as well.

Outrageous

In November 1972 the three youngsters began their sentences. There was no indication that this would become one of the most important and notorious miscarriages of justice in British history – one that would command two major enquiries and usher in pivotal changes in the law, but there should have been. Cameronʼs shifting of the goalposts on the time of death was outrageous. It destroyed the alibi work the defence had conducted.

It was obvious that Cameron had not changed his mind by such a considerable amount of time when he gave evidence, so when had he come to that conclusion and why? There was another obvious problem with the previous time of death – the fire evidence. If the original time of death was correct it meant that the murderers had stayed around for almost three hours and then set the fire. Why would anyone do that?

Fair Trial?

Changing the time of death neatly avoided that question and avoided the obvious conclusion – the fire had nothing to do with the murder of Maxwell Confait whatsoever. Cameronʼs conduct had rendered a fair trial impossible. The trial should have been stopped immediately and the issue resolved before any retrial occurred. It did not. The fact that this was allowed to happen to children – treated as adults by the law – makes it even more unconscionable.

The Judgeʼs Rules were amended on the treatment of child suspects and on the vulnerable – then termed ʻeducationally sub-normalʼ, but nothing was done about Cameron’s late change of opinion. The Police And Criminal Evidence Act was a direct response to this case and the Prosecution of Offences Act facilitated the establishing of the Crown Prosecution Service as a result of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedures as well.

Shamefully, nothing was done to prevent expert prosecution witnesses ambushing children or even adults at trial. Lord Justice James, delivered the decision of the Court of Appeal in July 1973. It proved to be yet another wretched judgement betraying the arrogance and complacency of a system that believed itself infallible.

“There was no misdirection in the summing-up to the jury and no representation of facts which can be relied upon as justifying the grant of leave to appeal”, said James, regarding Mr Justice Chapmanʼs summing up, but before long it would emerge that there were certainly facts that could justify not only granting leave to appeal, but quashing the convictions which had been secured by contemptible means.

Vindicated

The Cardiff Five (Yusef Abdullahi, John Actie, Ronnie Actie, Stephen Miller and Tony Paris) had been vindicated – proved innocent by the conviction of the real killer. Bizarrely, the CPS and Nicholas Dean QC failed to appreciate the lessons of previous prosecutions of police officers over miscarriages of justice.

In the 1990s – a golden decade of miscarriage of justice awareness – a worrying trend emerged. Convictions fell like flies, or seemingly so. Among them were some of Britainʼs most notorious miscarriages of justice. Beginning with the quashing of the convictions of the Guildford Four (Patrick Armstrong, Gerry Conlon, Paul Hill and Carole Richardson) in October 1989 others soon followed. A whole squad – the notorious West Midlands Serious Crimes Squad – was disbanded and numerous convictions were quashed. But despite this there were no successful prosecutions of police officers over those cases.

Watching the Detectives

Former police officer Ged Corley was convicted of being the mastermind of a series of armed robberies. His convictions, based on the word armed robbers turned super-grasses, were quashed in 1990. The Police Complaints Authority (PCA), discredited predecessor of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), investigated a bizarre complaint where the de facto head of the inquiry that convicted Corley, Peter Jackson complained about his own investigation.

Alban Turnerʼs conviction for the murder of Notting Hill Carnival coke-can seller Michael Galvin was quashed in March 1990 as well. His conviction depended on Kevin Sarbutts, whose allegations against the police resulted in a perjury conviction. His allegations against Turner were not investigated. They were to all intents and purposes ignored despite serious discrepancies. That would prove to be far from unusual.

A Gross Pattern of Incompetence

The convictions of the late Paul Darvell and his brother Wayne for the murder of Swansea sex-shop manageress Sandra Phillips were quashed in 1992 in strong terms by three judges headed by the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord (Peter) Taylor. Three officers were acquitted in 1994 despite proof that the original jury had been lied to. Allegedly contemporaneous notes had been written on notebooks issued two months later.

And 1991 saw the collapse of the case against the Tottenham Three (Mark Braithwaite, Engin Raghip and Winston Silcott). That resulted in police being prosecuted, but the previous errors were repeated. Jurors have to believe the original defendants were innocent or they wonʼt convict, especially if the prosecutions are lacklustre, which these were.

Egregious Injustices

These were far from the only miscarriages of justice to plague British justice at that time, but they had something in common – trials of police officers followed, as did acquittals in every case that was contested. Some like the Birmingham Six and Stefan Kiszko were as egregious injustices as could occur, yet despite charges being brought, the accused did not even face trial.

There was a lesson in these prosecutions, or rather there was for those willing to see. In all of the cases that reached trial, the accused police officers employed a simple and reprehensible strategy – a sadly effective one. They turned their trials into retrials of the wrongly convicted. Time after time the CPS failed to grasp the obvious lesson of these cases. Juries would not convict police officers over the miscarriage of justice cases without being convinced that the original defendants had been innocent.

Vindication

The trial of Mouncher et al offered new possibilities. Here was a case where there was no credible doubt about the innocence of the original defendants. They had been proved innocent. Jeffrey Gafoor had pleaded guilty and he was guilty. But the CPS did not have to rely on Gafoor – a man who had knowingly allowed innocent men to suffer wrongful imprisonment for his crime and who had benefited from his assistance to the Lynette White Inquiry Phase III investigation in the form of a reduction in the tariff he received.

An integrated approach to the crime-scene evidence, forensic pathology, blood distribution pattern and later DNA would prove consistent with only one interpretation. Lynette Whiteʼs horrific murder had not been witnessed by two or even four people forced to participate in it. There had not been five killers or even three. The evidence demonstrated unequivocally that there was only one killer – a man and his name is Jeffrey Gafoor. It proved that the Cardiff Five were, as they had always insisted, innocent. It had been proved beyond doubt.

Lessons

If the CPS and counsel it instructed had learned the lesson of all the previous failed prosecutions of police officers in the miscarriage of justice cases, they would have realised that their first and most important task was to convince the jury that there was no credible doubt that the Cardiff Five were innocent and that the evidence had established this fact many moons ago. Then and only then would a jury care.

They had this evidence available to them from a very credible witness that there was no doubt about their innocence, but the jury were denied his evidence. If the CPS and its counsel had done their jobs to the standard the public had a right to expect, the ground would have been cut from beneath the feet of the reprehensible tactic of accusing men who had been proved innocent before it was given the opportunity to sully justice further.

Sadly the CPS trod the discredited path yet again and wasted public resources botching yet another prosecution of police officers in circumstances where it was harder to lose than win, but they managed to snatch a pathetic defeat from the jaws of victory.