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.

The Long Wait for Justice

For more than twenty-one years Michael O’Brien has waited for an apology. South Wales Police intend to keep him waiting, despite paying half a million pounds to O’Brien and one of his co-defendant’s Ellis Sherwood to keep allegations of bad faith from being aired in court more than two years ago. Despite writing a book, several media appearances, reopened investigations and legal action, he is still waiting.

The decision to abolish the discretionary scheme for compensation and cap the amount awarded to the wrongly convicted may actually result in more civil actions being brought against police, eradicating the proposed savings. This case alone is likely to have cost the public around £1m.

It was re-opened in September 2003 after a cold case review. The murderer(s) of Phillip Saunders have not been brought to justice, nor are we any closer to discovering what went wrong in the original investigation.

Responsibilities

O’Brien has received no apology and the force has not admitted liability. It has been more than five years since the case was re-opened, yet there has been no breakthrough. It appears that attention was actually focused on the original defendants despite compelling evidence of their innocence.

During the re-opened investigation people close to O’Brien and Sherwood were arrested, but later released without charge. Over five years after the case was re-opened the perpetrator(s) remain at large.

Credible Evidence?

On October 12^th 1987 Phillip Saunders was viciously attacked and robbed outside his home in Anstee Road, Cardiff. He died five days later. O’Brien, Sherwood and Darren Hall were subsequently convicted of his murder. There was no credible evidence against them. Their convictions were quashed in 2000 after a year on bail pending their appeal.

After the historic settlement of the legal action by O’Brien and Sherwood, Deputy Chief Constable David Francis said, “Over a period of six years we [South Wales Police] have consistently maintained our position that the officers who worked on the inquiry into the murder of Phillip Saunders did so in good faith and the Force was not liable for malicious prosecution or misfeasance”.

Violations

The Newsagent’s Three, as they came to be known, were referred back to the appeal court in 1998 by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Detective Superintendent Alan Partridge, then of Thames Valley Police, reviewed police conduct in this case. He found 115 violations of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. This included handcuffing all of the defendants to radiators.

“Presumably, Mr Francis, police lawyers and the Police Authority believe that handcuffing us to radiators is a sign of good faith”, said O’Brien. “They used criminals against us, threatened our witnesses with prosecution and dropped serious charges against known criminals to get evidence against us. And then they used prison informers and a police officer with a history of overhearing confessions that hadn’t been made”.

Unnecessary Burden

Francis claims that the action was settled in order to avoid unnecessary expense to the public. To date he has failed to explain why it was necessary to run up legal fees for six years including fighting all the way to the House of Lords O’Brien’s attempts to adduce evidence about that officer, who claimed to have overheard incriminating admissions in the cell area of Canton Police Station between O’Brien and Sherwood.

A then Detective Sergeant Stuart Lewis had a history of overhearing so-called confessions in the that area. Five years before the arrest of the Newsagent’s Three, Robert Griffiths – one of the defendants in the Cardiff Explosives Conspiracy trial – was acquitted despite Lewis swearing on oath that Griffiths had confessed in the cells area. Lewis was involved in other controversial cases and was unlikely to give evidence on medical grounds.

If this investigation had been conducted in good faith and without misfeasance, why did they agree to compensate O’Brien and Sherwood and if the only reason was to save an unnecessary financial burden on the public, why did it take six years to reach this conclusion, racking up legal expenses on both sides in the process?