Guarantees

The families of murder victim Karen Skipper and her estranged husband Phillip who stood trial wrongly for her murder want a guarantee from the Secretary of State (Minister) of Justice that in the absence of compelling new evidence such as DNA, acquittals must be respected. They claim that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) could never have charged Mr Skipper, if he had been alive, on such evidence as Mark Evans QC allowed to use, especially as there was DNA evidence implicating another man, Evans’ client, so why was the defence allowed to do it without requiring a proof of guilt?

The victms’ families are shocked and disappointed that the criminal justice system allowed them to be victimised again with such poor quality evidence. A prison informer, Paul James had claimed at Mr Skipper’s trial in 1997 that Skipper admitted accompanying Mrs Skipper to Birdies Field that fateful night, but James refused to co-operate when called by Pope’s defence.

“I know that he [Mr Skipper] is dead and can’t defend himself,” James said, before the defence abandoned the attempt to get evidence from him and relied on statements he had made previously, along with evidence from earlier trials.

Quality

The quality of evidence did not improve. Mr Skipper’s neighbour, Pauline Horton, came forward after 13 years, claiming that she saw Mr Skipper following his wife towards Birdies Field in Cardiff on her last walk. She insisted that she was afraid of the Hell’s Angels, but neither Mr Skipper nor his friend David Davies were Hell’s Angels.

Horton accepted that both Mr Davies and Skipper had been perfectly nice to her. At best, she was, as prosecuting counsel Ian Murphy QC, had suggested, mistaken, but she would not countenance her evidence being rejected. “Don’t you call me a liar!” she told Mr Murphy angrily, but her evidence did not stand up. Perhaps there was a more sinister explanation of her evidence than Murphy suggested.

Scientifically Ludicrous

DNA from blood-staining on intimate areas of Mrs Skipper’s clothing linked Mr Pope, not Mr Skipper, to the crime. Mr Evans had claimed that the blood-stains had rehydrated from dew overnight and given the impression of fresh blood despite four scientists agreeing that direct contact was the most likely explanation and that rehydrated blood appears different from fresh blood.

Mr Pope’s explanation that Mrs Skipper’s dog bit him three weeks earlier after he removed a thorn from its paw and that Mrs Skipper had given him a tissue and transferred the blood to her pocket was rejected by the jury. It was a fanciful explanation and one that was flatly contradicted by the science.

Obscene

Mr Skipper had been eliminated as the source of that blood on the jeans fifteen years ago. At the time the prosecution claimed that it was not important. They had little choice as the prosecution was dead in the water if that evidence was acknowledged for what it was – proof of innocence. The prosecution in 1997 chose to ignore or minimise the importance of that evidence, which was seized on by Mr Pope’s QC, Mark Evans.

But the blood-staining was on intimate parts of Mrs Skipper’s clothing and was therefore quite obviously significant. It was clearly very inconvenient in the prosecution of Phillip Skipper.

If the significance of those blood-stains had been fully appreciated during the original investigation in 1996 or during Mr Skipper’s trial in 1997, it would have been crystal clear that Mr Skipper was innocent. That in turn would have ended his ordeal promptly and prevented a deplorable defence from being gifted to an unscrupulous man.

Nevertheless, Mr Pope was allowed to ignore Mr Skipper’s acquittal and accuse him twice more without any standard of proof.

“It should not be allowed”, said miscarriage of justice survivor Michael O’Brien. “A similar thing happened to me after I won my appeal. Phillip Skipper was entitled to be presumed innocent after his acquittal. Only compelling new evidence like DNA should allow an accusation like that against a person who has been acquitted or had their conviction quashed”.

Mr Justice (Sir Nigel) Davis at least had the good grace to stress that it was owed to the memory of Phillip Skipper to acknowledge his innocence.

The Rules of the Game

The family of murder victim Karen Skipper took a long time to accept that her deceased husband Phillip was innocent, but they are now convinced and share the outrage of his family, which includes the mother of his daughter as well. They all believe that, rather than observing the trial of her murderer, John Pope, they were forced to endure yet another trial of Mr Skipper – a man who could not defend himself and whose rights and reputation were given no legal protections at all.

They are further aggrieved that this time Pope’s retrial occurred without any safeguard at all of Mr Skipper’s right to be presumed innocent. Mr Pope, through his counsel, Mark Evans QC, was given carte blanche to put Mr Skipper on trial yet again, only he could use so-called evidence that had been ruled inadmissible during Mr Skipper’s trial in 1997.

The families of Karen Skipper and Phillip Skipper are united in their disbelief that the criminal justice system tolerated this. They say that relying on old evidence that had failed to convince the jury first time round and incredible new evidence that should have been laughed out of court meant that there was no burden of proof on his accusers – Mr Popeʼs defence. Where, they ask was the respect for their human rights? Where, in fact, was respect for the law?

The roles appeared to have been somewhat reversed. Prosecuting QC, Ian Murphy, was bound by the rules of evidence and Mr Popeʼs right to be presumed innocent and he observed his burden scrupulously. Mr Evans effectively was prosecuting Mr Skipper, but there were no rules governing what he could say and do.

Scrupulously Unfair

The judge, Mr Justice (Sir Roderick) Evans, bent over backwards to accommodate Mr Pope – even giving a bad character direction on Mr Skipper despite the lack of convictions justifying it. Pope was allowed to sit back while his QC prosecuted Skipper with no constraints. Phillip Skipper could not defend himself from the character assassination and nobody represented his interests, even though it was in the interests of the prosecution of Pope to do so.

This was a shocking abuse of the law and raises the question of why the system did not provide lawyers to represent the rights of the families of Phillip Skipper and Karen too. It got far worse. Mr Evans had even suggested that if the jury thought that it could have been Mr Skipper, then they should acquit his client. That outraged miscarriage of justice survivor Michael O’Brien.

“I don’t know how they can get away with saying those words to the jury and why the judge didn’t step in because it’s already been established in a court of law that Mr Skipper was acquitted and under European law, it says once you’re acquitted, you’re entitled to the presumption of innocence, so how they’ve managed to get away with this defence”? said O’Brien.

Mr Murphy could have done so far more robustly. After all, it was in his interests to prove Mr Skipper innocent, as that would have cut the ground out from beneath the deplorable defence tactics. Sadly, this appears to be a trend in such prosecutions – nobody represents the rights of the wrongly accused.

“Well it more than beggars belief. It just makes you angry, you know, the fact that a man who can’t defend himself”, Mr O’Brien continued. “That’s like picking on a vulnerable person and this is picking on someone who can’t defend himself and it’s the same principle behind it and it shouldn’t have been allowed”.

Inadmissible evidence and also the quite frankly ludicrous evidence of Pauline Horton masqueraded as ʻproofʼ of Skipperʼs guilt. The Crown could never have prosecuted such a shoddy case, so why was a defence lawyer allowed to do so by the back door?

“Well I think we’ve got to define what significant new evidence is”, O’Brien says. “Let me put it clearly, unless there is DNA or something of that calibre, or somebody who can describe them to a tee who didn’t know the person who had done the crime, but if they’re too scared to come forward where you can actually prove there was no collusion, then you shouldn’t be allowed to produce this kind of evidence and blame other people as the defence, because that is just attacking somebody’s innocence again”.

O’Brien is outraged. “I think that goes against everything that the court says the innocent person is entitled to and which an acquitted person is entitled to – the presumption of innocence – and I think the only reason why Pope’s defence has got away with this is because they know they have legal privilege”, he says. “They know they are supposed to go on the facts. What evidence is there that Phillip Skipper has done this crime? It should never have arisen a second time, but they’ve done it. It has to be stopped”.

And there’s another issue. Why did the prosecution fail to demonstrate Mr Skipper’s innocence when the evidence to do so had been there all along?

by Satish Sekar © Satish Sekar (June 1st 2011)

Introduction

There can be no doubt that forensic sciences – and I use the plural deliberately – have advanced in leaps and bounds over the last quarter of a century. The programme CSI is science-fiction, that is fiction based allegedly on forensic science, but it does illustrate the importance of my main theme – the need for an integrated approach between these sometimes competing sciences and also between the sciences and the needs of lawyers within the adversarial legal system.

However, there is another urgent theme that must be addressed – the treatment of the innocent and what role medical practitioners have in helping to resolve the many issues that they face, but of course, those issues come later in the process. The first stage is the use of forensic sciences as an investigative tool that can correct or hopefully even prevent miscarriages of justice, which would avoid the need for any restorative justice.

In the past, competition between scientific disciplines and even the legal process caused unnecessary difficulties that contributed to the miscarrying of justice. That illustrated the need for an integrated approach between these disciplines and lawyers too, especially as defendants are held responsible for the conduct of their defence through their instructions. Today this means that they have to be aware of forensic science. With fingerprints and DNA that’s not a problem, but what about other disciplines? Forensic entomology, pathology, botany, fire-analysis, data-logging and pig-burning are equally important forensic sciences for instance?

Many may struggle to know who to instruct regarding such sciences, and in some cases what use it could be and that includes scientists or lawyers, partly because they are specialists, who know their area of expertise and try to avoid straying from their comfort zone. Therefore, I suggest, cases require an overview conducted by a forensic scientist, or expert, who can identify any forensic science that could assist to get to the truth and which expert or experts are best-equipped to provide answers.

The adversarial system suffers from the lack of an inquisitorial element, which can allow the truth to fall between the competing interests of prosecution and defence lawyers. The investigative process is of course meant to be inquisitorial, but what is the experience in practice?

The police investigate crimes, but they perform a task that does not include an objective investigation of the possibility of innocence, especially after arrest. It’s not their function. By that stage both they and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) have invested their reputations in proving the guilt of the defendant(s), so they have no interest in producing evidence of innocence. On occasion such evidence has been suppressed if discovered.

Once they have a confession and the CPS has charged the defendant, they often see no need to investigate further through forensic sciences, especially in the current economic climate, but this can be a false economy. The extraordinary case of Neil Sayers, (which will be covered in the forthcoming series of articles An Integrated Approach – Righting Wrongs) demonstrates this.

Forensic sciences can offer tests which could resolve issues in cases, but the competing interests at trial can lead to tactical decisions not to conduct tests or instruct experts. But it is far from one way traffic. Defence lawyers oppose the police and prosecution and have their own vested interests too. They also choose not to get certain tests conducted, if they fear that it could prove the opposite of what they want to show.

The end result – as happened in Sayers’ case – is that some tests that could have resolved vital issues were not conducted and experts were not instructed. This is not saying that he is necessarily innocent – just that he and anyone in his position should have the right to have their claims of innocence tested rigorously as the opportunity existed, but neither prosecution nor defence did so.

Everything changes after conviction, as it did for him. The tactical considerations governing the trial process no longer apply and the convicted defendant no longer has much to lose from instructing experts and getting tests conducted, but the law will not allow them a second bite of the cherry and that is entirely reasonable at least in certain circumstances. However, there are cases where unreasonable expectations are placed on defendants to the point that some did not get a first bite as they did not understand the significance and potential of forensic sciences to help them and the jury too.

Disorder

These developments and techniques demonstrate the need for an integrated approach between the various forensic science disciplines and also the criminal justice system as a whole. This theme recurs in Sayers’ case, but it would be a mistake to think that this only happens in the most serious cases like murder. It can and has happened in far lower profile ones. For example, it happened to a man facing trial for grievous bodily harm and violent disorder when he and his friends were the victims of a cowardly racist attack.

Three black men were racially abused and then attacked by a far larger group of racist thugs in Norwich in April 1989 – the Hillsborough tragedy occurred on that very day. Once the attack got serious and involved weapons from a nearby building site, Brian Moore, Terrence Alexander and Carlos White felt that they had no option but to defend themselves. They were joined in their fight by four white men who stumbled across the attack and helped the three black men to try to prevent them getting hurt.

Moore and his friends defended themselves with available weapons too and reported the incident to police later. Incredibly, they too were charged. That cost the CPS the witness testimony of the victims against the perpetrators, as the victims had been turned into defendants themselves, rather than witnesses by an outrageously crass decision by the police to charge them and another by the CPS to prosecute them. The same thing happened to the white men who helped Alexander, Moore and White.

The credibility of the black victims and the white men who helped them had been compromised as witnesses before the jury by those ludicrous decisions and it soon became clear just how unjust the decisions had been. The leader of the racist thugs, Jonathan Galbraith, was among those acquitted on the orders of the judge, His Honour Judge Binns, without being required to provide a defence as a result of those decisions.

Shortly afterwards, the evidence of Galbraith’s central role in the shameful events of that afternoon emerged. While Galbraith and other members of his gang savoured their ill-deserved freedom, a victim of the attack, Moore, was convicted of violent disorder and sentenced to two years imprisonment. White was acquitted, despite admitting hitting Galbraith on the head with a piece of wood, so what was the difference between Moore’s case and White’s for example?

That emerged during Moore’s appeal in July 1991, almost five months after he was incarcerated. The only evidential difference was that Moore allegedly banged Galbraith’s head on the pavement. There were witnesses for and against such an interpretation, but there was an obvious issue that has never been satisfactorily resolved. If Moore had banged Galbraith’s head on the kerb, surely the medical records would unequivocally prove that such an attack had taken place.

The jury heard no evidence about this. Galbraith had some head injuries. Moore had placed himself near Galbraith, but insisted that all he did was drag him out of the road, saying that Galbraith’s head may have hit the pavement, but it certainly was not banged intentionally, or violently. If true, he would be supported by the medical records, but Moore’s defence at trial kept Galbraith’s medical records out of the hands of the jury, because they believed that they would not have been helpful.

They may have been right at that time, but hindsight is 20/20. After Moore’s appeal succeeded on sentence only – they didn’t appeal on conviction, even though Moore maintained that he had acted in self-defence – the evidential reason for his conviction emerged. It had to have been based on the alleged head-banging incident, but yet again it demonstrated the need for an integrated approach to the case as a whole, especially between witness evidence, the judicial process and medical science.

Some of Galbraith’s hospital records had been disclosed, but the significance was not only not known at trial, it was impossible to predict. Moore’s case hinged entirely on this alleged incident. If he had banged Galbraith’s head on the pavement, one of two things should have happened.

Firstly, he should have been convicted of grievous bodily harm – he was charged and acquitted of that offence – and secondly the medical evidence should have been consistent with that accusation. How could violently banging a then defenceless man’s head on a pavement be anything less than grievous bodily harm and how could any lawyer be expected to think anything else?

Consequently, it was reasonable for Moore and his defence to believe that he had been cleared of banging Galbraith’s head on the pavement, when he was acquitted on the orders of the judge of grievous bodily harm. The first they could have known otherwise was when the appeal judges based his violent order conviction on that alleged incident.

The use of this incident to justify the conviction raises issues of double jeopardy at a time when it was an inalienable principle of British justice. Moore was not seeking a second bite of the cherry – he wanted a first bite. Legal aid was obtained to instruct the forensic pathologist, Dr. Iain West, and his conclusions showed that while Galbraith had head injuries, there was nothing consistent with violent head-banging on the pavement.

Moore’s case languished at the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) while the case against him seemed in tatters. He was free, so his case was not considered a priority. It remained gathering dust, unable to progress to review. West died in July 2001 without having been contacted by the CCRC, which eventually instructed an expert whose conclusions were vague.

Its expert would not rule out the possibility that head-banging could have taken place, but did not say that it had. The CCRC could have requested all of Galbraith’s medical records – it would have had a better chance of getting them – and then tackled the dispute between the experts, especially as West could no longer defend his opinions.

The dispute between West and the CCRC’s expert was not resolved. With West sadly deceased, it surely should have instructed other experts to resolve the dispute between the experts. Instead the CCRC moved the goalposts. Having decided that the evidence did not exclude the possibility of head-banging entirely, regardless of the strong opinion of West that it did and failing to resolve that, the CCRC claimed that the conviction could have been obtained by threatening gestures and behaviour allegedly made by Moore. It failed to say what these were and when they were allegedly made and what the evidence that suggested it had happened was.

Moore deserved a fair examination of his case to establish if there was realistic prospect of the Court of Appeal intervening. He did not get that. Shorn of the head-banging incident, the justification for the conviction provided by the three appeal judges had gone, as according to them, there is nothing else to distinguish Moore from his fellow victims of the racist attack, so surely there was a reasonable prospect that the Court of Appeal would intervene if asked to on the basis of new evidence regarding the unlikelihood that it had happened at all.

The Crown could not provide any medical or scientific evidence at all supporting its claim that it had occurred.  Moore’s case may not seem that important in the context of the others that resulted in sentences for more serious offences, but it is. It has deprived Moore of his good name and prospects. Nothing can restore his career now – an aspiring television presenter at the time, his career was wrecked by a case that yet again lacked an integrated approach to the law and medical science and witness evidence, which suggests that Moore’s conviction should not be considered safe.

At the very least the CCRC can legitimately be expected to resolve differences between experts in cases like this, especially as the solution is so obvious. Medical practitioners sometimes have powers of life and death. That’s obvious, but occasionally, so do forensic scientists, which may not be so clear. The classic example of this is the man termed by some ‘The Father of Forensics,’ Professor Sir Bernard Spilsbury.

It is clear from analysis of his work that he was prone to allowing his testimony to go beyond the limits of his science and for his prejudices to trump the interests of justice.[2] Nevertheless, in his day, Professor Spilsbury’s reputation was second to none, sending many to the gallows, but perceptions changed and had begun to do so even in his lifetime.

Perhaps fearing exposure and disgrace as his powers waned, Spilsbury took his own life in 1947. He is now seen by no less an authority than the eminent retired forensic pathologist, Professor Bernard Knight, as ʻa very dangerous manʼ.’

The consequences of Spilsbury’s reputation were extremely dire for some.[3] However, he made forensic pathology respectable and solved many mysteries – some of which were the most famous of his time.[4] Hawley Harvey Crippen, Frederick Seddon, George Joseph Smith, Major Herbert Rowse Armstrong and Alfred Arthur Rouse all went to the gallows on Spilsbury’s say so, but perhaps the most important of Spilsbury’s victims was Norman Thorne – executed for a crime he may well have been innocent of.

He coined a phrase that offers a stark warning of the risks of poor science and over-reliance on reputations, built on false foundations. “I am a martyr to Spilsburyism,” Thorne said days before he was hanged for a crime that probably never occurred – suicide was at least a possibility even if it suited Thorne’s convenience.

Thorne’s denunciation of Spilsburyism was years ahead of his time, but it should be remembered and today’s expert witnesses must also be aware of the consequences of inflexibility in their evidence. Once Spilsbury had made up his mind, nothing could change it, including evidence, which sadly finds an echo in some of today’s experts in many jurisdictions.

[1] An indication of the importance of an integrated approach can be seen in Equality of Arms, at http://fittedin.org/fittedin/?p=690  for more on this case and others too.

[2]This review of Andrew Rose’s book Lethal Witness: Sir Bernard Spilsbury, Honorary Pathologist at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/3667415/An-over-celebrated-pathologist.html gives a flavour of the controversial pathologist’s methods.

[3] The Fitted-In Project will be publishing a pamphlet on the consequences of Spilsburyism and its legacy in 2016.

[4] For further information on the former Fellow of the RSM see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article5429780.ece

Radio Cardiff

Part One Satish Sekar with Georgina Sammut and Shawty

Satish Sekar discusses the foundation of The Fitted-In Project and why it was re-established on this Community Radio programme. He explains why the vindication of the Cardiff Five was necessary. Sekar details the methods used to secure convictions and consequences of it. He comments on why he holds the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) more responsible than the police for the wrongful prosecutions of the Cardiff Five. Sekar credits the work of Professor Dave Barclay in the eventual vindication of the Cardiff Five and also South Wales Police in correctly solving the murder of Lynette White. He details how they detected Gafoor.

Part Two Satish Sekar with Georgina Sammut and Shawty

Sekar explains the arrest of Jeffey Gafoor and the significance of vindication. There are currently seven such cases in Britain. He explains that there are more victims of these cases and that there has to be processes to explain how justice miscarried. Sekar details the trial of the core witnesses. He calls them the New Cardiff Three, He explains the role of the CPS in another vindication case, that of Phillip Skipper, for the murder of his estranged wife, Karen. It gifted a defence to the real murderer, John Pope, who repeatedly accused Skipper of being the murderer after Skipper had been acquitted and had sadly died. Sekar details how Barclay demolishes the prosecution scenario in the Lynette White Inquiry and why he should have been a witness in the collapsed trial, before explaining why Sekar was prevented from attending the Police Corruption Trial and its consequences. He explains his controversial view that the CPS, rather than South Wales Police are more responsible for the miscarriages of justice and how they have evaded taking responsibility for any of it. Sekar also calls for fiscal responsibility. He says both the IPCC and HMCPSI processes were inadequate.

Part Three Satish Sekar with Georgina Sammut and Shawty

In the third part of these interviews Sekar explains the process of trying to secure accountability from the CPS over the whole case. The CPS refused to answer his complaint – a process that has been ongoing since 1993! He explains how its own Code for Crown Prosecutors proves the Cardiff Five should never have been prosecuted. Sekar details why the CPS has to be held responsible and that Alun Michael has asked questions of the CPS as well. He then explains some projects that The Fitted-In Project conducts and the scandalous treatment that all the victims of vindication cases have been subjected to. Sekar then makes his case for fiscal accountability.

Labels

Being Jordan Cunliffeʼs mum for the last seven and a half years hasnʼt been easy. Not just because I have had to become accustomed to my new title, ʻMother of a Murdererʼ, but because I have had to explain over and over again that my son was proven not to have murdered anyone during the trial, so calling him a murderer is wrong.

Someone who has not murdered anyone should not be called a murderer, yet the English language has yet to create a name for a person like my son. He was there, but he was a child and a vulnerable one too. Legal people try to fool both themselves and the public with the words ʻsecondary party to murder.

Yet that still doesnʼt fit either because by definition murder must be with intent – otherwise itʼs not murder. So someone who doesnʼt lay a finger on the victim, who plays no part by plan or by purpose and has no knowledge of the intentions of the person that does, is not a murderer.

So why is my son labelled a convicted murderer? Why is this allowed not only via words that have vilified and tormented both him and our entire family for over 7 years, but via the harshest punishment that can be inflicted upon a person in this country. And that punishment is a life sentence in prison.

Vulnerable Child

My boy Jordan was just 15 years-old when he was charged with the shocking murder of Garry Newlove. Jordan was blind and needed transplant surgery in both eyes. Rather than go over the details and evidence of the case Iʼm just going to say that after 3 terrifying days of questioning in the police station of an extremely vulnerable child and on hearing the statements of others during this process, I firmly grasped what had happened on Station Road that night.

Iʼm no detective, but Iʼm no fool either. I worked out who it was that inflicted that one fatal blow. It was one blow at that stage and about working out exactly who had delivered it. It was only minutes after Jordan was charged with murder that I had my theory confirmed by the mother of the boy who had delivered that blow. If I could work this out, why couldnʼt the police, CPS and other lawyers.

Jordan was there in the crowd when Newlove was attacked, but he took no part in it. He was a child – a blind one. What did they think he could do? He obviously could not have taken part in the attack itself. But being there left him vulnerable to a murder charge, through the controversial principle of Joint Enterprise, but that implies that he shared the intent of the teenagers who attacked Newlove. Where was the proof of Jordanʼs intent?

The Search for the Truth

The charge had been made I accepted this as part of the search for the truth – well I accepted it then, not knowing what I know now. I knew the next few months were going to be tough – even painful – but my trust in British justice was such that I resigned myself to this anguish.

I did this knowing another family had lost a loved one and that the evidence had to be laid out before them in a trial process. We felt we had a duty to accept this process – it was only fair. Itʼs what we would have expected. We recognised that our pain was nothing in comparison to theirs.

To sacrifice six months on remand and the trauma of a trial was nothing like that of three young girls who had lost their dad. We knew that they were victims of this horrible incident and that by the end of all of this we could return to our comfortable lives and continue as the loving family we had always been. It wouldnʼt be that simple for the Newlove family – that was obvious.

It was also clear to us that after our small sacrifice, which was in the name of justice, this would eventually become a distant memory – one my family would always feel sympathy towards but not a memory that would infiltrate our lives with grief on a daily basis. The Newloves didnʼt and wouldnʼt have that luxury.

Naïvety Gives Way

How wrong we all were. Not a day has gone by without grieving for the loss of my son and the teenage years I have missed spending with him. Not a day has gone by not having to discuss the case in detail, chasing lawyers: researching the law, searching for answers, explaining my love for my child and grieving for the future life both he and we will never have. All because of the actions of someone else combined with the actions of a flawed and uncaring justice system.

The first few years were the worst because when the law lies, the media reports those lies, quashing any voice I had left. After the endless nights screaming myself to sleep and endless days talking my child out of taking his own life, the endless grind started to take its toll. When you have asked every question imaginable: when you have asked why has this happened and no one has an answer, what is left?

When even those in the so called ʻknowʼ find it impossible to understand, let alone explain it to you, you eventually have to stop tearing your hair out. You stop punching yourself in the face. You either shut up and put up with the dreadful hand youʼve been dealt, or you look for a way forward on your own. There is no doubt about it you are on your own as well.

You are not a victim; youʼre scum. You somehow deserve this nightmare. Your child, whom you know better than anyone else, whom you nurtured from the cradle isnʼt human to others, As far as they, the wider public are concerned, heʼs a dog that should be destroyed.

When the press give their readers a stick and tell them to beat you with it, that is exactly what they do. People who love you tell you to go to the papers, go get the truth out there. If only it was that simple. It took over 18 months before the first journalist I built a relationship with was able to establish the truth that my son was wholly innocent.

It took a lot less time for the Crown to find him guilty, but the seeking of the truth was never on their radar not for the victimʼs family, and certainly not for us. Not even for the public. The CPS had to ensure that only cases where they have enough evidence to prove guilt and that prosecuting was in the public interest reach trial. It was plainly in the public interest, but sufficient evidence? Was the prosecution of my son justified by the evidence?

What is the evidence that Jordan shared a Joint Enterprise with Newloveʼs attackers? Did he plan the attack with them? Did he take part in it? Did he shout encouragement? If any of the above, what is the evidence that proves it? Did the CPS apply its own Code for Crown Prosecutors¹? I recently became aware of the importance of this in a Joint Enterprise case – one that is hardly ever mentioned as such – the Cardiff Five.

The evidential criteria was published then, which meant their supporters and advocates could do what we canʼt. They could compare the criteria with the evidence against them. The failures of the CPS in that case were astonishing and it isnʼt the only one. If only we could do the same. The CPS must believe that there was enough to prosecute my son, so what are they afraid of? Publish the criteria and let the public see for themselves whether they are following their own guidelines.

Gagging the Evidence

To be told by someone with no agenda or emotional attachment towards you that they had searched to find the evidence to prove his guilt and found none, was like a breath of fresh air to a drowning man. However, they couldnʼt report the truth because a gagging order had been placed preventing my sonʼs severe disability ever being broadcast.

We have to ask why? What possible justification could there be for preventing the public from knowing that Jordan suffered from severe disabilities? Without this vital piece of the jigsaw there was no real story. Just as they had denied this vital piece of information to be heard at the trial, yet again my boyʼs innocence was being silenced. Unfair does not begin to cover the injustice here. This has happened to Jordan and to us. How many others are struggling to cope with stolen pieces of the jig-saw?

Frustratingly, judges at an appeal hearing, not only upheld this injustice, they vented their anger towards my boy who dared to use his legal right to appeal his conviction. Sadly thereʼs nothing new in this. It happened to the Birmingham Six, Bridgewater Four among others too. Ninety years ago, the opinion of one man – almost certainly wrong – trumped those of eight experts. The jury took less than half an hour – let me repeat that. The jury took less than half an hour to dismiss the evidence of eight medical experts in favour of just one. The judge had even described the prosecution expert as ʻThe greatest living pathologistʼ. The Court of Appeal refused to allow a panel of experts to consider that evidence. They dismissed the appeal and Norman Thorne was hanged. Thorne never had a fair trial or appeal. Fast forward 90 years. What has changed?

Jordan brought forward grounds for appeal. He did so with evidence that in normal circumstances should have seen him gain an opportunity to appeal. These men talked of public outrage and opinion, but failed to recognise the publicʼs opinion was not only based upon the lies they had been told, but upon the truth they had been denied. I ask again, what has changed since Norman Thorne became a ʻMartyr to Spilsburyismʼ?

Common

Years went by. I chipped away like a woman possessed. I talked of nothing but joint enterprise to anyone who would listen, and inch by inch the cracks have started to appear. I can truly say that if it were not for the horror of the conviction my son received, the British public still would not have heard of the phrase joint enterprise.

4.4million people heard that phrase over and over all at the same time, one evening last summer when they tuned into BBC1 to watch Jimmy McGovernʼs joint enterprise film, Common – a film inspired by sonʼs ordeal.

I have had tears, I have had tantrums. Iʼve even tried to will myself to death. When pain and frustration runs so deep life becomes impossible. Being forced to live with injustice does irreparable damage but at the same time it creates an incredible quest for justice and the desire to never stop until you have proven all you need to prove.

Justice Not Just Us

I no longer care what people think about me as I used to, if people are too foolish to listen to the vital message about joint enterprise and have no concern for themselves or their children, Iʼm not too tired to repeat myself. Joint Enterprise may have a place in our law, but if it does, let it be just. Let the CPS prove that the accused shared a joint enterprise with each other. Let them prove with credible evidence that the defendants plotted and planned with each other, or participated in an attack that led to murder. Garry Newloveʼs widow Helen is now the Victimʼs Commissioner and a Baroness. She says that just being in the crowd when her husband was attacked should be enough for a murder conviction. That devalues their ordeal too. We have no problem with those responsible for Garry Newloveʼs death being convicted, but if being there is enough, is anyone safe? We also find it odd that victimsʼ rights advocates are so silent on some cases – ones where you would think the supporters of joint enterprise would be demanding action. Instead itʼs left to those families, their supporters and – last but hopefully not least, us!

Until it happened to my son, I hadnʼt given much thought – any – to joint enterprise. I had heard about and been appalled by the murder of Stephen Lawrence. Like many others I didnʼt know much about the sad events that occurred nearby two years earlier that cost a boy my sonʼs age his life and left his brother scarred by those events.

Unlike my sonʼs case a gang participated in the attack on Rolan and Nathan Adams. There was evidence that members of a racist gang took part in that attack. Their actions distracted Rolan. Mark Thornburrow stabbed him fatally. How could Rolan know if others who attacked him were armed too? Did their attack distract his attention and prevent him from fending off the fatal attack? Members of that gang shared a joint enterprise with Thornburrow – it was at least arguable. But the gang members were either not charged, or charged with comparatively minor offences like violent disorder. They got no sentence at all or community service orders and they were involved. Over a quarter of a century later the CPS refuses to use joint enterprise in a case where it could and should have been used, but sees nothing wrong with using it against disabled child who did not take part in the attack. Where is the justice in that?

On one of the days I spent with Jimmy McGovern, he told me that a lie is half way around the world before the truth has even put its boots on. I can relate to that wholeheartedly. Iʼve finally put my boots on.

Coded

For the last quarter of a century the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was supposed to have provided independent scrutiny on decisions over whether or not to prosecute. It had powers to discontinue prosecutions, which it has used, and it had guidelines that ought to have ensured that the Cardiff Five at least never stood trial.

Hywel Hughes was the Crown Prosecutor in this case. He took the decision to prosecute and did so in spite of the Code for Crown Prosecutors that provided guidance on whether the evidence was of sufficient quality to prosecute with a realistic prospect of conviction. Outrageously the CPS has tried to defend its decision to prosecute by pointing out that it secured convictions.

Culpable

Hughes was also responsible for deciding to prosecute the Newsagent’s Three (Michael O’Brien, Ellis Sherwood and Darren Hall) – another high profile Welsh miscarriage of justice¹ – despite over 100 breaches of PACE and other serious failings. Examination of that Code in the Lynette White Inquiry leaves no room for doubt that it was a prosecution that should never have been tolerated.

Securing convictions in a case now acknowledged, and actually obvious even at that time, to be a notorious miscarriage of justice must never be seen as a justification for a prosecution that plainly did not have credible evidence to justify proceedings. The CPS had a responsibility to halt this prosecution in its tracks and an ongoing discretion to stop the prosecution at any stage before wrongful convictions were secured amid a trail of devastated lives.

Pathetic

Instead, it failed to do so in a case where there is no credible doubt about innocence and acquiesced meekly when those charged with causing that miscarriage of justice stood trial and were allowed to claim that the Cardiff Five were in fact guilty when the evidence proved that they were not. The CPS failed to present the clearest possible evidence of their innocence adequately, despite having had this proof from a very credible source – a respected forensic scientist. That is shameful. The irony of this should not be lost.

Allowing the Cardiff Five to stand trial on evidence that would have been rejected as implausible had it been offered as a script to any policing drama is a failing that taints its claims of independence even now almost a quarter of a century later. It had the opportunity to consign the discredited Penderyn methods to history and failed to do so miserably.

Shameful

Its refusal to do its job adequately resulted in other miscarriages of justice that could have been prevented. The CPS must bear the ultimate responsibility for that. Had it refused to prosecute the Cardiff Five the police would have had a clear message – the Penderyn methods (see The Blame Game at http://fittedin.org/fittedin/?p=918) will no longer result in prosecution, let alone convictions.

That in turn would have meant that police would have been faced with a stark choice. They could cling to the outdated methods and hope for the best (worst really), or they could secretly fabricate evidence, telling nobody and hope to get away with it.

Alternatively, they could change their methods, relying on modern investigative techniques and advances in forensic science, resulting in more reliable evidence and a better chance of securing convictions that deservedly stick. Hughes’ failings and those of the CPS robbed society of an efficient and just criminal justice system almost 25 years ago. For that it must receive a large slice of the blame, but there are others deserving of condemnation too.

All He Ever Wanted

“All I ever wanted is justice”, says Michael O’Brien, one of the men wrongly convicted of the murder of Cardiff newspaper vendor Phillip Saunders, over 25 years ago. O’Brien has campaigned tirelessly to bring a former DCI (Stuart Lewis) and two witnesses to book for perjury.

“Helen Morris and Christopher Chick admitted perjuring themselves to the CCRC (Criminal cases Review Commission and in a Welsh TV documentary”, O’Brien continues. “They should be prosecuted”.

Despite this strong evidence the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided that there was not enough evidence to prosecute any of them. O’Brien plans to challenge the decision. He points to the one recent example where witnesses were prosecuted for perjury in a miscarriage of justice case – the Cardiff Five.

Precedent

“In that case they found the real killer”, he says. “So what? The evidence in my case is just as strong. It should not be necessary to find the real killer to investigate what went wrong in miscarriage of justice cases”.

Where there is the will it can and has been done, but that is needed. “The police have no intention of finding the real killer in my case”, O’Brien says. “There is plenty of evidence that I was a victim of perjured evidence. I am entitled to the same justice that the Cardiff Five got. Perjurers should be prosecuted – no excuses”.

Three days before she was due to stand trial accused of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice Eleanor de Freitas committed suicide. Last year she had accused a man¹ of rape. The investigating officers believed her, but lacked sufficient evidence to prosecute him. The Metropolitan Police still categorise it as rape, but they told her that they did not think there was enough evidence to prosecute her alleged attacker.

De Freitas had mental health issues. She had previously been sectioned. She accepted the decision not to prosecute him. The man that she had accused did not. He decided that his only option to clear his name was a private prosecution against her. He gathered texts and CCTV for that purpose. This was the basis of the decision to prosecute de Freitas.

According to de Freitasʼ father the man harassed her with texts and voicemails. Unusually the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided to take over that prosecution. It insisted that the police provide a disclosure officer and claimed that new evidence surfaced, justifying prosecuting de Freitas. It also insists that there was new evidence that the police had not considered.

Last November Allison Saunders succeeded Sir Keir Starmer as Director of Public Prosecutors. Saunders provided a robust defence of the CPSʼ actions in this controversial and tragic case. Saunders insists that prosecuting de Freitas met both criteria – that there was sufficient evidence to offer a realistic prospect of conviction and that it was in the public interest. However, the CPS that she inherited operates in a culture of secrecy over how it reaches decisions on whether to prosecute or not.

Dark Ages

Previously the CPSʼ Code for Crown Prosecutors outlined the criteria that prosecutors needed to be aware of when making decisions on whether there was enough credible evidence to pass the realistic possibility of securing a conviction test. Back then the CPS was open about what the criteria were, although it stressed that these were only guidelines. It also defined what prosecutors should be aware of when deciding whether prosecuting was in the public interest or not.

For further information on these criteria in an era when despite its faults – and there were many – the CPS believed in openness refer to Satish Sekarʼs book Fitted In: The Cardiff 3 and the Lynette White Inquiry² at http://fittedin.org/fittedin/?page_id=15.

That Code meant that it was possible to compare the evidence relied on in a case to the requirements of the Code and judge whether it was right to prosecute or not. It also mandated its prosecutors to be aware of lines of defence and how that would impact on the possibility of securing a conviction. This plainly applied in de Freitasʼ case, but does that apply in the decision-making process any more?

The decision to prosecute de Freitas would surely have benefited from such openness on the decision-making process of the CPS. Crown Prosecutors may still apply the sufficiency test in the decision-making process, but without access to those criteria, how can the public judge the conduct of the CPS and how can they hold the CPS responsible for its decisions.

The previous Code would have meant that the decisions made in the de Freitas case could have been understood and assessed with access to the knowledge needed to make an informed decision. Instead, the public are left in the dark, depending on crumbs offered by the DPP. It could and should have been so different.

Unjustifiable

The Crown Prosecution Service was established over a quarter of a century ago. Among its high profile and spectacular failures is the Lynette White Inquiry. Its Code for Crown Prosecutors included criteria on sufficiency of evidence. When the Cardiff Five were prosecuted it had 13 – the overwhelming majority of them strongly suggested that it was a case that should never have been brought to trial.

The CPS has been avoiding taking responsibility for its numerous failures in this case for several years now. They even had the effrontery to claim that securing convictions justified the decision to prosecute. Since when has securing one of the most notorious miscarriages of justice in British history been a justification?

Excuses

When that was pointed out to it, they hid behind the recent proceedings against the former police officers, claiming that they could not answer the questions then. But they promised answers after the trial. The collapse of the trial was followed by pledges to respond that were quickly broken. The new excuse was that they would respond after HMCPSI reported, even though the concerns we raised were not part of that investigation and they knew that full well.

“The role of Her Majestyʼs Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) is to enhance the quality of justice through independent inspection and assessment of prosecution services and, in doing so, improve their effectiveness and efficiency”, Baron (James) Wallace of Tankerness responded in writing to Baron (John) Laird.

“Although HMCPSI examines a range of cases as part of its normal inspection process, it does not investigate and report on individual cases unless, exceptionally, a case is referred to HMCPSI by the Attorney-General using statutory powers for matters intended for cases of general public concern” Lord Wallace continued.

Inadequate

This plainly was a case of great public concern, but so were many others. There are now six vindication cases in England and Wales¹. Many of them raise issues over the original prosecutions. The CPS has yet to be held accountable over any of them. HMCPSI has not been asked to investigate those or others too where prosecutorial misconduct or incompetence may have occurred.

“However, as a rule HMCPSI is not an investigative body”, Wallace continued. “HMCPSI has undertaken two recent reviews at the request of the Law Officers”. The HMCPSI report allowed the CPS to evade responsibility for its numerous failures over this case. The CPS has never explained its dismal performance in the Lynette White Inquiry. It should not be allowed to evade its responsibility to the public.

Extraordinary

The extraordinary case of Gary Mills and Tony Poole is in the news again. After fourteen years of wrongful imprisonment, they were freed in June 2003 – the last seven because senior judges did not know the law or ignored it. The main reason for the quashing of their convictions was the cumulative effect of the lack of integrity of the inquiry into the controversial death while in police custody of Hensley Wiltshire in 1989.

More than four years ago they lodged a complaint with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) alleging criminal conduct by police. They claimed that the number two in the inquiry, former Detective Inspector Trevor Gladding, had perverted the course of justice and perjured himself. Allegations of serious malpractice were made against other officers as well.

Two different sets of appeal judges: a high court jury¹ and a former Lord Chief Justice were far from impressed with Gladding’s conduct. Eventually, the Criminal Cases Review Commission also declared itself dissatisfied with the effect that several instances of police malpractice could have had on the safety of the convictions and referred it back to the Court of Criminal Appeal, which heard it in 2003.

Inadequate

The CPS referred their complaint for investigation, which was picked up by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) in April 2004 and would become a major test of the independence of the new body. Nearly four years later it issued a provisional report dismissing the complaint.

“The investigation report belongs to Gloucestershire Constabulary and it is for them to decide what can be released into the public domain,” said IPCC spokesperson David Nicholson.

I raised eleven questions with them. He responded with: “It is for Gloucestershire to decide whether and how they answer.” To date, the IPCC, CPS and Gloucestershire Police have not answered the queries. In other words, the IPCC and CPS think it is acceptable for the bodies complained about to exonerate themselves and decide what information should be allowed into to the public arena. So much for openness and integrity.

Legacy

Their complaint was a legacy case, meaning it was investigated under the old rules, which meant that independent investigators were not used and there was no requirement of disclosure of the report. The IPCC has done itself no favours at all.

“The matter has now been concluded and the complaints were unsubstantiated,” said Nicholson. Such a comment is quite frankly ludicrous and merely emphasises the unsatisfactory nature of the IPCC.

The IPCC’s finding contradicts all previous inquiries including the much criticised investigation for the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) conducted by former Chief Constable of Durham Police George Hedges in the early 1990s.

Culture of Secrecy

The IPCC was established to counter the culture of secrecy surrounding complaints against police. This shameful decision and refusal to make its full findings public will taint its claims of independence for years to come.

The Commissioner in charge of this complaint was Rebecca Marsh. She wrote: “On the evidence available, the IPCC is not satisfied that there is a realistic prospect that the conduct of the officers complained of fell below the required standard. We are therefore minded to conclude that misconduct proceedings cannot be justified.”

And this in the case that the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf said: “Almost every aspect of this prosecution is tarnished.”

Nevertheless, we now know that perjury and perverting the course of justice do not constitute an abuse of due process of law² and that such conduct does not fall below the required standard of conduct from police officers,³ but that it is not libellous to say that Trevor Gladding perverted the course of justice and perjured himself.⁴

“We agree that this has taken a very long time to resolve,” said Mr Nicholson. “The setting up of the IPCC was because of frustrations with the ‘previous system’ and the length of time that cases took to resolve.”

The average IPCC investigation in the relevant region takes 166 days. This investigation took almost four years to reach incredible conclusions at great expense in a report that will almost certainly never see the light of day. The name has changed, but judging by this decision not much else.