Presumed Guilty

“I don’t care about the money,” is a frequent refrain of the innocent. “I want my name back and an apology.” Usually they get neither, because miscarriage of justice organisations and campaigners still don’t get it. Quashing a conviction is no more than half the job. The criminal justice system does not care about guilt or innocence; it never did.

An acquittal at trial is nothing more than an admission that the prosecutor could not prove the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It is not a declaration of innocence. Appeal is no better. If a conviction is quashed, it meant that the conviction was found to be unsafe. That is not the same as a finding of innocence. Occasionally judges make sure that there is no doubt, by saying that they are not finding the appellant innocent. There is no verdict of innocence, yet that is demanded now in compensation claims.

Exoneration

Annette Hewins, Sion Jenkins, Barry George and Andrew Adams are part of a growing trend. Their convictions were quashed on appeal, yet none of them have received a penny in compensation because the Assessor decided that they had not been exonerated. The fact that there is no verdict at trial or appeal in British law that guarantees exoneration seems to have escaped politicians, eager to save pennies at the expense of those wronged by society.

The former Unionist MP, Lord John Laird, sought clarification. Laird asked the government to “issue a practice direction to criminal courts ensuring judges declare any defendant acquitted at trial, or appellant whose conviction has been quashed as unsafe on appeal, as innocent at the close of the court proceedings.”

He also asked the government “whether they will ensure that appropriate compensation and aftercare is provided to such persons?” His question and the subsequent answer from Lord Tom McNally, a Minister of State at the Ministry of justice were ignored by media expressing an interest now the Supreme Court is considering these issues.

Practice

“Practice directions in the criminal courts are a matter for the Lord Chief Justice, not the Government,” said McNally. “It has long been an important feature of our criminal justice system that a person charged with an offence is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty. A person found not guilty is to be treated as innocent, as too is a person whose conviction has been quashed on appeal.”

But the practice is different. Exoneration is required for compensation now. “A person whose conviction is quashed on appeal may apply for compensation under Section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Entitlement to compensation under that provision will be considered shortly by the Supreme Court in the case of Adams.”

Actually they can’t. The abolition of the Discretionary Scheme means that any person whose conviction is quashed in an in time first appeal will not qualify under Section 133. Even if there is no doubt about innocence whatsoever, they are not entitled to anything and the government not only knows it, but refused to right the wrong. The very same minister Lord McNally said as much previously when asked to restore the Discretionary Scheme by Lord Laird.

“The discretionary compensation scheme was abolished on 19 April 2006 by the then Home Secretary and the coalition Government have no plans to reintroduce it,” said McNally. “We will continue to consider applications for compensation under the statutory scheme, Section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which fully meets our international obligations.”

It also excludes anyone who had the temerity to be acquitted or have their convictions quashed on a first appeal even if they are proved innocent later by the conviction of the real perpetrator.

Hope

Two months ago Yusef Abdullahi passed away, aged just 49. It could and should have been different. Eight years ago I helped to arrange care that he desperately needed. Abdullahi was in a terrible state. He was by his own admission, addicted to heroin and had an alcohol problem too. It was a sadly familiar story and those just didn’t tend to end well. Tony Paris wasn’t in as bad a state, but he needed help as well and Stephen Miller was on their doorstep. It came as no surprise that he required help as well. None of them were given the assistance that the State which had wronged them owed them.

The Miscarriages of Justice Project (MJP) had been established in 2003 to provide advice and assistance to victims of miscarriages of justice to help them rebuild their lives, but there was a problem. The scheme excluded the Cardiff Three totally and many others too. Only people whose convictions had been quashed after an out of time appeal or a reference back by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) qualified for help.

Uncaring

This had not been the original intent of Parliament, so they were approached to help anyway. The MJP agreed that it was the perfect opportunity for them and for Abdullahi to illustrate the absurdity of a policy that forced them not to help even in a clear cut miscarriage of justice just because they had the temerity to win their first appeal, but its then Deputy Director Amarjit Kaur pulled the plug.

She claimed that if they even went to see them and assessed their needs, they could lose their funding and not be able to help others, so why had her staff agreed to the visit in the first place? “It’s outrageous,” said miscarriage of justice victim John Kamara. “He was a victim of a miscarriage of justice and clearly needed help. They should have given it to him. What use are they if they won’t help people like Yusef when he needed it?”

Lies

Michael O’Brien, himself a victim of one of Wales’ most notorious miscarriages of justice, raised the issue of people like the Cardiff Three being excluded with the MJP. He even asked, years later, why Abdullahi was not helped when it was promised. He was told that Abdullahi was offered counselling and turned it down.

This is not true. Who says so? Abdullahi for one. Others, including his QC, Roger Backhouse, who helped fill the void created by the lack of care for him, can attest to it. “Yusef was very appreciative of the help that I gave him”, Backhouse said. “He acknowledged and thanked everyone who had taken the trouble to help him.” The MJP was not on that list; he confirmed that he had never received any help from the MJP or offers of help from it.

Long Overdue

After-care for victims of miscarriages of justice was an idea whose time had come at the turn of the millennium. Following Parliamentary questions to then Home Office Ministers Lord Williams of Mostyn and Paul Boateng in the late 1990s, the Home Office’s Probation Unit, which became the National Probation Directorate, established a Working Group in July 2000 to consider how to provide help to victims of miscarriages of justice.

The late Lord Williams had recommended that a voluntary sector organisation that was familiar with resettlement of prisoner issues should develop a national service to provide advice and counselling that was tailored to meet the needs of successful appellants. There was no suggestion in his answer that any groups of victims should be excluded.

Errors of Judgement

We can reveal that despite the clear wishes of Lord Williams, many victims of miscarriages of justice have been denied assistance to rebuild their lives because they did not serve long terms of imprisonment. In fact, they were excluded by an error made by the consultant that the Working Group commissioned to scope the service to be provided.

Peter Shore’s job included devising a service based on the needs of former prisoners who had successfully appealed against their convictions. He also had to investigate the potential number of clients and average length of time served in prison. After that he had to consider whether those who had served the longest should be treated as priority users of the service. There was no suggestion in his terms of reference that prisoners who had served long terms of imprisonment should be the only beneficiaries of the scheme.

But Shore did not follow his terms of reference. The report of the Home Office Working Group itself which made the recommendations that resulted in the MJP being set up makes that clear. “The scoping study looked at the two primary sources of clients in need of an advice service: referrals by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) to the Court of Appeal and out-of-time appeals. The Report notes that 80 per cent of the cases referred by the CCRC in 1999/2000 resulted in success for the appellant. This suggests a likely annual figure of around 15-20 new cases each year. There are also likely to be a small number of additional cases per year arising from successful out-of-time appeals. In total, the annual case load for an advice service is likely to be in the region of 70 cases per year (new referrals prior to release, existing cases – immediately after release – plus cases requiring support beyond the immediate post-release period).” [their emphasis].

It is clear from that passage that Shore never investigated whether people whose convictions had been quashed on an in-time first appeal had any care needs at all. The Working Group had emphasised the wrong part. This is the important bit. “The scoping study looked at the two primary sources of clients in need of an advice service: referrals by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) to the Court of Appeal and out-of-time appeals.”

Shore had just admitted that he had not followed his own terms of reference and had wrongly devised a service that excluded people who had won in time first appeals. Worse still the Home Office Working Group had not only failed to notice that he had not followed his terms of reference, but commended him for his work and established a so-called service that excluded first time successful appellants like the Cardiff Three and also Annette Hewins and Donna Clarke. As a result of these failings the vast majority of successful appellants were excluded from the provision of after-care. Only Fitted-In highlighted this scandal.

Restitution

“Yusef is the only client that I would do this for”, Backhouse reiterated. “The state has a duty to restore people like him to the position they should have been in. They let him down. It is shameful that the consultant did not follow his terms of reference and that the Working Group did not notice his error. Their mistakes denied Yusef and others in his position the help that they needed”.

Abdullahi was fortunate, if that is the right word. He found that there were people who cared enough to help, but he tested their boundaries. He pushed people away hard. They came back time and time again. Eventually he saw that there was another way for him and he took that opportunity. Despite the odd lapse he stuck to the plan that was developed for him, based on his individual needs. Dev Barrah and George Silcott played an important role in helping Abdulahi too.

He managed to overcome some of his demons, but sadly lasting damage had been done and he died too soon. “The way Yusef was treated disgraces our society”, said Backhouse. “I was not surprised that he became a passionate advocate for restitution. His legacy must include an end to this scandal”.

Apology?

Michael O’Brien’s quest for an apology for over eleven years of wrongful imprisonment has so far been unsuccessful, but he secured the highest ever compensation to a victim of a miscarriage of justice in a civil action against the police. South Wales Police paid O’Brien and his then brother-in-law Ellis Sherwood a total of half a million pounds in 2006.

“In accordance with counsel’s advice payment into court have been made in full and final settlement of the claims by Mr. O’Brien and Mr. Sherwood without an apology”, said Deputy Chief Constable Dave Francis. “It is emphasised that this has been done without any admission of liability”.

Bad Faith

Francis went on to claim that O’Brien and Sherwood had chosen to accept the payments rather than take their allegations to court, but O’Brien says he had no choice but to accept the payment, because he faced bankruptcy if he pursued his claim and the court awarded him less than the police paid into court.

“I stand by all of my allegations against the police”, said O’Brien. “They acted in bad faith. Let them sue me if they dispute this”. OʼBrien has made no secret of his allegations of bad faith. South Wales Police and those accused, especially Lewis have never sued him.

His solicitor who helped him to bring the historic claim was unimpressed with the way the settlement had been portrayed as well. “South Wales Police are trying to depict their payment of £500,000 plus legal costs of probably the same amount again as a commercial settlement,” said Sarah Ricca. “I wonder if anyone is fooled by such a claim.”

The Newsagent’s Three have yet to receive an apology from either the police or criminal justice system. Nor is there an investigation into unlawful conduct by police officers in this case despite the conclusions of former Detective Superintendent Alan Partridge and the endorsement of the appeal court.¹

Refusal

“Their refusal to apologise after all that they put me and my family through clearly shows that they refuse to accept the findings of the CCRC and appeal court”, said O’Brien. It has had a detrimental effect on the Forceʼs attempts to move on past the discredited methods of policing at that time

“I do not trust them to investigate this crime impartially any more”, OʼBrien said. “I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt, but they refuse to investigate my claims of bad faith in the original investigation, let alone allow the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute any of them. Only a fully independent public inquiry can get to the truth of what happened in my case and other miscarriages of justice in South Wales”.

Consistent Critic

Since his release O’Brien has been the most vociferous critic of South Wales police over miscarriages of justice, including his own. A tireless campaigner for a public inquiry into several Welsh cases including the Cardiff Five and that of Annette Hewins, O’Brien has been a consistent thorn in their side.

Ironically an apology and an investigation into proven police malpractice in his case could have avoided the expense to the public that Francis appears so keen to avoid years ago.

Justice

“The fact that they paid such a large amount into court has nothing to do with concerns for the public purse and everything to do with the strength of the evidence against South Wales officers,” said Ricca. “There now needs to be a public inquiry into this and other cases involving South Wales police officers which raise such serious allegations of police misconduct.”

Nobody wants the murder of Phillip Saunders solved more than Michael O’Brien, so much so that he offered a reward of £50,000 for information leading to the convictions of the real murderer. All he ever wanted was justice.