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.

The Road to Oblivion

Nearly a quarter of a century after John Billington despatched the once aspiring executioner Samuel Dougal, who was not deterred by capital punishment from committing murder, Thomas Pierrepoint, who was persuaded to become a hangman by his brother Henry, put the noose around the neck of another who should have been deterred if it worked – a corrupt former police officer.

James Power was hanged in Winson Green Prison in Birmingham in January 1928. The jail overlooked the site of the crime that cost Power his life. While walking by a canal at around 9.45 on July 2^nd 1927 in Hockley, Charles Broomhead and 18-year-old Olive Turner were approached a man claiming to be a police officer.

He told them that he was arresting them for trespass, although other couples were left alone, but then he raised Broomheadʼs suspicions by demanding money to let them off. Broomhead told Turner to run off and tried to give her a head-start, but Power turned and thumped him before chasing the defenceless Turner, whose body was discovered in the canal the following day.

Broomhead came round to see Power abduct Turner. Fortunately for him others had too. Her watch had stopped at 11.41 indicating the time of the attack. Turner had been raped before being thrown unconscious into the canal. Broomhead was an initial suspect, but other witnesses supported his claims that another man had dragged Turner away.

The description fitted Power and he quickly emerged as a suspect to former colleague Detective Sergeant Albert Edwards. Police knew that he had still been masquerading as a police officer – he had previously been a policeman, but was dismissed for corruption. A street identification was arranged and Broomhead confirmed Edwardsʼ suspicions. Other witnesses identified him as well. Power insisted that they had all been mistaken, but Turnerʼs murder was only one of his crimes.

A Disgrace in Uniform

Born in Ireland in 1894, Power emigrated to England. After the police struck for better pay and conditions in 1919 – the last time they went on strike in Britain – Power joined the force in March 1920. Trained officers, some of whom were exemplary, were dismissed over the strike. That had unfortunate repercussions.

It created vacancies that were exploited by people who were not fit to wear the uniform. Power undoubtedly belonged to that category of officer and soon abused his authority. Just over a year after joining the force he failed to complete his beat. Six months later he was punished – his pay was reduced for a year.

It was a comparatively minor offence, but his next was not – it cost him his career and revealed the character flaw that would lead him to destruction. Within six months of being disciplined over his beat offences his conduct towards a servant named Clara Hammersley marked the beginning of the end.

Her employer, Frederick Taylor, insisted on making a complaint, but had the misfortune of making it to Power who promised to pursue the matter, claiming to know who the miscreant was. The incident occurred on December 14th 1922. Just over a week later Power was suspended. His police career was all but over.

On January 10^th 1923 the Joint Standing Committee dismissed him instantly. His career as a police officer was over, but Power was not averse to impersonating an officer, a trait that helped to send him to the gallows.

A Menace

Power had been a menace to the society he had sworn to protect just a few years earlier. The former police officer had been terrorising courting couples on the tow-path: demanding money with menaces from them along with committing more serious offences as well.

A young woman came forward claiming that Power had raped her. His reign of terror relied on his ability to impersonate a police officer, but finally his luck ran out. In December 1927 Power appeared in court in Birmingham, charged with Turnerʼs murder – the lesser offences lay on the file. He was prosecuted by the eminent barrister Norman Birkett KC¹. Power was rapidly convicted of Turnerʼs murder after a two-day trial. He was sentenced to death by Mr Justice Swift.

Powerʼs appeal failed and the 32-year-old former police officer was hanged by Thomas Pierrepoint, assisted by Robert Wilson on January 31^st 1928. He was the first former police officer to be executed in Britain in the twentieth century. If capital punishment could not prevent a former police officer from committing murder, despite knowing what the penalty was and that a shameful death on the gallows (in his case) was the likely result, can the death penalty really be the ultimate deterrent?

It is often said that capital punishment is the ultimate deterrent. The Fitted-In Project is not convinced. No matter how harsh the punishment it cannot deter criminals who do not think that they will ever be brought to justice. Executions occurred and the crimes they were intended to deter continued.

The last executions in Britain happened just over 50 years ago. Gwynne Evans and Peter Allen were hanged on August 13^th 1964 for the robbery and murder of John West. Just two months later Labour came to power and fulfilled a manifesto promise. Capital punishment was suspended and ultimately abolished for murder five years later. It was abolished for all offences in 1998.

Wretched

For 64 years of the last century people were hanged. Hanging women was rare, but not unheard of. More often than not it was controversial. The execution of Ruth Ellis was certainly hotly debated and remains contentious even now, but three decades earlier, the execution of Edith Thompson was worse – she was petrified of the prospect of execution and cut so wretched a figure that it traumatised the executioner. John Ellis tried to kill himself a year later. Attempting suicide was then a serious criminal offence. Ellis succeeded in taking his own life in 1932.

The use of capital punishment was debated and agonised over a few times during that period. Then, as now, it had supporters – usually slamming opponents as soft on crime, but who did it protect? Did actually deter at all? We don’t think so for the following reasons:

Deterrent Tales

Satish Sekar examines some unusual stories from the last century, mainly from Britain, but not limited to that jurisdiction. Law enforcement officers knew the consequences of murder fully, yet Britain is not the only country to have executed a police officer in the twentieth century. The USA was first and Morocco put a senior officer to death – a serial rapist.

Ernest Moss may even have used the death penalty to commit suicide by proxy. John Reginald Halliday Christie – one of Britainʼs most notorious serial killers – was fully aware of the consequences of his crimes. In addition to several murders, he chose to send an innocent man to the gallows and continued killing after Timothy Evans was wrongfully convicted and hanged. How hanging the wrong man can deter anyone has yet to be explained.

Rogues Undeterred

Among the gallery of those who should have been deterred if indeed capital punishment worked were the following: a solicitor, a would-be executioner and a friend of the chief executioner – all of whom committed murder knowing that the penalty was death.

A serving police officer went to the gallows along with two former officers, and a special constable. All of them knew full well the punishment for murder was hanging. It failed to stop them. If capital punishment can not deter people such as these, can it be considered a deterrent at all, let alone the ultimate one?

Capital Punishment

The death penalty is said by its supporters to be the ultimate deterrent. But is it? If anyone should think once, twice and be put off from committing a capital crime, it should be those working in law enforcement, especially police officers. But has it? On December 16^th 1950 Scottish police officer James Robertson earned the disgrace of being the only serving police officer to be hanged in Britain in the 20^th century (see Deterrence – The Ultimate Failure at http://fittedin.org/fittedin/?p=635).

If the death penalty was a deterrent, let alone the ultimate one, surely the message should have been clear to police officers, who brought criminals to justice and on occasion to the gallows. Surely, if deterrence worked, Robertson should have been deterred, but he wasnʼt and his is not a unique tale. Almost 47 years to the day before Robertson was hanged Brooklyn police officer William Ennis  earned a shameful distinction. He was the first serving police officer to die in the electric chair. 

Thug

On January 14^th 1902 a drunken Ennis committed two appalling crimes. He shot his estranged wife Mary dad and attempted to murder his mother-in-law. Mary was living with her mother at the time. She had left Ennis and secured a judgement against Ennis separating from him due to his cruel and inhumane treatment of her. Ennis had been ordered to pay alimony, but he resented both the judgement and his mother-in-law.

The judgement against Ennis had been ordered two weeks before he murdered his wife. Ennis had said that he would rather ʻrot in jailʼ, than pay. He demanded that she should come back and live with him. The irony of a police officer, sworn to uphold the law, threatening to ignore the law to bully his wife further seemed lost on him and his colleagues.

The court authorised the Sheriff to enter his home, seize property and sell it to pay the alimony. Ennis complained that Mary was under her motherʼs influence and should return to him. On January 14^th 1902 Ennis broke into his mother-in-lawʼs home and shot her – she survived – before shooting Mary dead. Ennisʼ rage had been fuelled by binge-drinking the night before. He had used his police-issue revolver to commit the crimes and then ran away. He was found by police sleeping in a nearby hotel a few hours later.

Brooklynʼs Finest

In May 1902 the now former Brooklyn police officer Ennis stood trial. He had admitted responsibility and shown some remorse when interviewed by police, but his defence at trial was insanity. Evidence of epilepsy suffered in childhood was put forward. His lawyers claimed that this, suffering from delusions and convulsions caused him to be violent. Medical evidence was provided, along with testimony from friends and relatives.

Even if all this was true, it beggars belief that such a person was deemed fit to be a police officer in the first place. Furthermore, it is astonishing that he was allowed to remain on duty after a court had ruled that Mary was entitled to separation and alimony due to his cruel and inhumane treatment of her. It was a tragedy waiting to happen.

Mary Ennis certainly deserved far better than she received from her husband and the police. Ennis had an acknowledged history of unacceptable treatment of Mary, but his employers saw no need to intervene, let alone remove a man who was clearly unfit to serve from the job. The tragic murder of Mary Ennis and subsequent fate of her murderer should have resulted in stringent safeguards to ensure that only those mentally fit to serve passed through training and onto the streets.

Judgement

The prosecution countered Ennisʼ insanity defence with a letter Ennis had written previously showing his intent to kill Mary. The jury accepted the prosecutionʼs claims that the murder was premeditated and rejected the insanity defence. Consequently, Ennis was sentenced to die in May 1902. Despite the verdict prison officers were concerned that Ennis was insane, but medical practitioners concluded that he was faking symptoms of mental illness.

His appeal was rejected in October 1903. That left commutation of the sentence by the then Governor of New York as Ennisʼ only hope of avoiding the sentence being carried out. A petition on behalf of Ennisʼ mother and sister was delivered by Judge Joseph Aspinall. Governor Benjamin Odell Jnr. declined to intervene. On December 14^th 1903 William Ennis became the first police officer went to the electric chair in New Yorkʼs Sing Sing Prison. He was the first police officer to suffer that fate.

Nothing Special

At first glance there is nothing special about December 16^th 1950, but it proved to be one of the most important dates in the history of British justice. It was the day that the veneer of deterrence was stripped away from capital punishment in Britain once and for all. James Ronald Robertson was not just another prisoner who paid the ultimate price for his crime – he was a special category of person who suffered capital punishment.

Robertson was hanged that morning in Barlinie Prison in Glasgow, but he was unique in the annals of people executed in Britain in the twentieth century. If ever a person should have been deterred from committing murder by the death penalty, it should have been Robertson. He was perhaps the most important guilty person executed in Britain in the twentieth century.

Why? Because James Robertson was the only serving police officer to be hanged in Britain in the twentieth century. So what brought a law enforcement officer to face the long drop at the hands of Albert Pierrepoint and his assistant Steve Wade?

The Road to Infamy

Catherine McCluskey died on July 29^th 1950. She had seemingly been the victim of a callous hit and run driver. Her body was left where she fell in the road. It soon became clear to Constable William Kevan that there was more to this than met the eye at first glance. There were no tyre-marks in the road indicating a screeching halt. There was no glass in the road from a sudden stop and McCluskey’s injuries were not consistent with an accidental hit and run.

It was a deliberate murder, which had been badly staged to look like an accident. The killer had not only hit McCluskey, but reversed over her. It could not have been an accident. The woman was soon identified as McCluskey when a friend reported that she had failed to return home to pick up her baby after reports of the death was published. Kevan was told that McCluskey had been having a relationship with a police officer named Robertson.

Investigations established that Robertson was supposed to be on duty on July 29^th, but between 11.15 and 1.30 that night he absented himself from his beat with Constable Dugald Moffat. The lack of an alibi soon became the least of Robertson’s problems. His car was a stolen vehicle with false number plates: the exhaust was damaged and the under-carriage was stained with blood and human hairs. He had run over McCluskey twice.

Disgrace

Charged with vehicle offences and murder, Robertson denied everything at his trial in November 1950. His defence on the car theft charges defied credibility. He claimed to have found it and driven it. A few days later he found the log elsewhere as well. Quite why a police officer would think this behaviour, even if true, was acceptable seems to have escaped him. They were still crimes.

His explanation of McCluskey’s death defied belief. He had met her that night. They argued and he drove off, abandoning her in the road. He then thought better of it and went back for her accidentally reversing into her. This explanation fails to explain how he managed to accidentally run over her twice. It took the jury just over an hour to decide that Constable James Robertson was a murderer.

The Ultimate Punishment

Robertson’s week long trial ended in Lord Justice Keith having the dubious distinction of sentencing a serving police officer to death. The execution was scheduled to take place on December 4^th, but a stay was granted while Robertson appealed. After the appeal was dismissed a new date was set, less than two weeks after the original date.

There was no reprieve, so Robertson became the only serving police officer to face the gallows in Britain in the last century. He was just 33 years-old when he demonstrated that capital punishment was not even a sufficient deterrent to prevent a police officer abandoning his beat to commit murder.

The allegedly ultimate deterrent had failed to stop a serving police officer unlawfully cutting short the life of a woman he was sworn to protect. Could it ever be taken seriously as a deterrent again after such a monumental failure?