We will be publising Bad Form – How Tariffs Protect the Guilty and Punish the Innocent early next year. It will reveal important new facts on how the tariff on Gafoor is an even bigger travesty than had been previously thought.

Here’s a taster: https://www.facebook.com/satish.sekar.3/videos/1374091852695493/

Anniversary

Thirteen years ago today Jeffrey Gafoor made history. Gafoor pleaded guilty to the murder of Lynette White. She was the victim of what was then (February 14th 1988) the most brutal murder of its type in Welsh history. Faced with overwhelming evidence Gafoor admitted that he had murdered Lynette. He had provided samples for DNA testing before attempting to take his own life in February 2003. Police officers from the Lynette White Inquiry Phase II saved his life.

Phase II was one of the best investigations ever. Led by Detective Chief Superintendent Kevin O’Neill, these officers and the forensic scientists, did a fantastic job. They knew that finding the real killer would come at a huge price to the force. No British police force had ever resolved a miscarriage of justice by convicting the real killer in the DNA age. Any force that did so knew that it would unleash a can of worms, the like of which British policing had never faced before. But still, they investigated doggedly and continued until they made history by bringing Gafoor to justice.

A Colossal Error

And then that storm was unleashed. Phase III investigated what went wrong – who was responsible for one of the most notorious miscarriages of justice ever. Thirty-four people were arrested and interviewed under caution on suspicion of offences including conspiring to pervert the course of justice and perjury. Twenty of them were police officers and 13 were told that they would face trial, along with two civilian witnesses.

But before they faced trial three of the alleged eye-witnesses were tried for perjury and conspiring to pervert the course of justice. Mr Justice (Sir David) Maddison ruled that they could not claim duress, as the law demanded that they must retract immediately, but to whom – police officers, the courts? Who? How could they be expected the courts or police after what they had gone through?

Mark Grommek, Angela Psaila and Learnne Vilday (the New Cardiff Three) were convicted – rightly as the law said, but wrongly according to justice and conscience. The court accepted that they had told the lies they were forced to tell and then they were prosecuted for telling them. They were each sentenced to 18 months in prison. This was and remains a huge injustice – the law could not have acted more inappropriately, but worse would soon follow.

Travesty

With 13 police officers and two witnesses due to face trial it was decided that eight former officers, including Graham Mouncher and Richard Powell and the witnesses Ian Massey and Violet Perriam would face trial first. The trial began in 2011. I was due to be a witness against Massey. Nicholas Dean QC and his prosecution team ensured that I would miss virtually all the trial for no good reason – actually there was a very good reason.

We were not meant to see what was unfolding. It would take a very long time to unravel, but unravel it would. The trial collapsed on largely spurious grounds. Disclosure was not what it should have been – that is unarguable, but whose fault is that? The straw that broke the camel’s back was the failure to disclose some documents – copies actually. The originals had been retained, and copies were taken.

The copies were meaningless. It was believed that they had been destroyed – evidence to that effect was given, but it was not true. A month after the sensational collapse of the trial the supposedly destroyed documents were discovered in the very boxes that they had been sent to police by the IPCC.

Unlawful

I had been kept out of the trial until it was far too late – we believe that was their intention all along. South Wales Police chose to cooperate with HMCPSI and the IPCC, both of whom were investigating aspects of the collapse of the trial. The terms of reference established that neither process was worth cooperating with as they would not establish why a notorious miscarriage of justice had been allowed to occur.

I chose not to cooperate and demanded the return of my work product, which was mine alone, as was the copyright on it. The Professional Standards Department unlawfully seized my work and distributed to others against my wishes in flagrant disregard of my rights and copyright.

The justification supplied a year late did not apply to me. Naturally the IPCC – itself an interested party and therefore not an impartial arbiter upheld the ludicrous justification – one that applied to criminal suspects not cooperating witnesses. Both HMCPSI and the IPCC failed miserably to explain why this appalling miscarriage of justice had occurred – inevitable really – as neither was concerned with that and nor was the Home Secretary, Theresa May. Her concern was to avoid a public inquiry.

Squaring the Circle

As early as the first week of the 2011 Police Corruption Trial it became obvious that the prosecution was lacklustre – notwithstanding that the prosecution team could talk a good talk. The defence case was a tried and tested method in such cases – deny that there had ever been a miscarriage of justice. The Cardiff Five were guilty, they claimed. But what about the DNA? What about Gafoor’s guilty plea? What about his insistence that he had acted alone?

Simple. None of that mattered. All that counted were his inconsistent accounts. He could only remember inflicting ten or twelve stab wounds and not the throat ones. So what? Well that meant it was possible that there was more than one attack. “Technically”, Angela Gallup said – the scientific equivalent of ‘and I can’t rule out the possibility that pigs could fly either!’

There was forensic pathology evidence and blood distribution pattern evidence that had an important story to tell. Lynette’s murder was never consistent with five killers and two witnesses charging around the crime-scene in darkness without leaving any trace of themselves or interfering with any of the evidence in the flat.

It simply flew in the face of any notion of logic.

The Final Insults

It served well in 2011 – so well that it was trotted out again in the compensation case in 2015. And as in 2015 the witnesses that could demolish this outrageous hypothesis were never called. We will be publishing Trials and Tribulations – Innocence Matters? soon. The aim is to reassert the truth – the Cardiff Five are, as they always were, totally innocent of any involvement in the murder of Lynette White, even though it is too late to matter to Yusef Abdullahi and Ronnie Actie.

Meanwhile, Gafoor had received a very lenient tariff in 2005 – just 12 years and 8 months, 13 years in reality once remand was taken into account. Consequently, Gafoor is now eligible to apply for release on parole. We will be publishing Bad Form – How Tariffs Protect the Guilty and Punish the Innocent soon to illustrate the grave flaws with the tariff system – one that sees no problem with treating the truly guilty more leniently than the innocent for the same crime. As Lloyd Paris – Tony’s brother – said, “Things are back to front!”

The Eleventh Hour

In two days time Mr Justice (Sir Wyn) Williams will deliver his long-awaited judgement at 11. It’s expected to be a long document, detailing a sorry tale of one of Britain’s most notorious miscarriages of justice. It is expected to determine whether the Cardiff Five suffered a miscarriage of justice at all.

It has become a saga that even Eugène Ionseco the master of Absurdist theatre would have struggled to comprehend. White became black – literally – and now history may not only be rewritten, but obliterated. If Williams rules in favour of the former officers suing South Wales Police, it will turn history on its head and deter attempts to investigate alleged police malpractice in miscarriage of justice cases.

The question of why South Wales Police were allowed to investigate themselves and why the institutions and politicians that they are supposedly accountable to permitted it to happen will be shuffled off into an archive, never to be answered. But it will answer some pertinent questions, not least of which is do we have the police and criminal justice system we deserve?

Pertinent Queries

If we tolerate this, the answer is yes. The Lynette White Inquiry began over 28 years ago. It has seen five innocent men wrongly accused of her murder – three were wrongfully convicted. John and Ronnie Actie were acquitted in 1990. Two years later the convictions of the Cardiff Three (Yusef Abdullahi, Stephen Miller and Tony Paris) were quashed on appeal.

The case was reinvestigated by Phil Jones, the former Head of South Wales Police CID. Jones was later jailed for corruption. His investigation fizzled out after an absurd insistence that police should be allowed to use up all the DNA if they wanted to. They were stopped from doing so and within six months an improved DNA testing system was announced by the now defunct Forensic Science Service. That system was crucial in resolving the Lynette White Inquiry.

A new investigation (Phase II) took four years to complete, but it made history. It became the first miscarriage of justice case in Britain to be resolved by the conviction of the real murderer. Jeffrey Gafoor’s guilt was proved by overwhelming evidence, especially the combination of forensic science and crime-scene evidence. It was in reality a simple tale, which suffered so many twists and turns that it became complicated.

The truth about Lynette’s murder was plain and obvious – don’t take my word for it, the evidence that cannot lie proves it, but in a trial allegedly necessary to put right what had gone wrong, the most compelling evidence of the innocence of the Cardiff Five never saw the light of day.

The Final Insult

Instead, a ‘scientifically ludicrous’ scenario was put forward. Angela Gallop said that it was ‘technically’ possible that there had been two attacks on Lynette. She never came close to saying that is what happened and with good reason. It flew in the face of logic. Gafoor could only remember inflicting 10-12 wounds. He accepted that there were more than fifty, including a vicious slitting of her throat.

The crime-scene evidence was never consistent with two attacks. It was known that the killer had cut himself. His cast-off blood had been located as early as 1988. The inquiry rightly proceeded on the basis that they were looking for a solitary killer – sexually motivated homicides almost always are committed by one person.

It was claimed that there had been two attacks – one by Gafoor and the other by the Cardiff Five, but if this had happened, why was there no trace of any of the Cardiff Five in that flat. The murder happened in the dead of night – there was no lighting. How could five men and at least two ‘witnesses’ have committed that murder and got out without leaving any trace of themselves or interfering with the plethora of evidence tying the real killer to his crime?

How could Gafoor alone have cut himself while inflicting comparatively minor injuries and the others had not? This defied belief, yet it has been repeated in the compensation case too. And yet again rather than call the scientific evidence that demolished this scientifically ludicrous scenario, it is allowed to pass unchallenged. History is being obliterated and the public is expected to foot the bill again without anyone or any institution taking responsibility.

Lessons

The criminal justice system has never listened to Lloyd Paris – its loss. Lloyd shows dignity and decency even though those qualities are sadly lacking in the treatment he has received from it. His brother Tony was one of the victims of a now notorious miscarriage of justice. On Saint Valentine’s Day 1988 20-year-old Lynette White was murdered. It was a knife crime of exceptional brutality – a sexually motivated homicide. The case against his brother and four co-accused depended on a case scenario that Professor Dave Barclay described as “scientifically ludicrous”.

There were dire consequences for the Cardiff Five and their wider families. John and the late Ronnie Actie were acquitted in November 1990. Two years later Stephen Miller, the late Yusef Abdullahi and Tony Paris were freed on appeal, but the whispering campaign against them and subsequent damage continued for years. It ended, or should have in July 2003 when the Cardiff Five were vindicated by the conviction of Lynette White’s real killer.

Bad Form

There were many victims of this terrible case and further insults would occur. The Cardiff Five had lost a total of sixteen years between them for a crime Gafoor admitted he had committed on his own. More importantly, the crime-scene evidence, forensic pathology, forensic psychology, blood distribution patterns and DNA proved that Lynette had indeed been murdered by one person acting on their own and that man was Jeffrey Gafoor. Despite the serious aggravating circumstances, Gafoor receives a tariff – the minimum that he must serve before he becomes eligible to apply for parole – of just thirteen years. Amazingly, both Tony Paris and Yusef Abdullahi had received harsher tariffs for the same crime.

“Well it’s bad form to tell you the truth”, Lloyd Paris said. “You know the type of thing that man done, he should have done a lot more jail. I don’t know what the system’s coming to. They say it takes time for things to go round that slow, but it’s too slow. Everything is going too slow. It took all this time to get the police in court. It took the police all that time to get Gafoor. It’s silly. It really is silly”.

Max Hilll QC, then Vice President of Bar Association agreed that it would look odd to the public. “[Y]ou identify a need for precision in sentencing in miscarriage cases”, Hill said. “I’m happy to discuss that because clearly from a distance if as you tell me in the Lynette White case there was a sentence that was applied to those wrongly convicted, which was heavier than the person ultimately rightly convicted, to many people that would appear wrong and the question behind that may be, do you need to do something about tariff sentencing to ensure that doesn’t happen?”

(We will be answering this question in our forthcoming report Just Tariffs, and highlighting the problem in further articles).

The Western Mail’s Chief Reporter, Martin Shipton, believes that changes are required. “Well it suggests that there is something seriously wrong with the way in which tariffs are arrived at”, he said. “Now whether that is because there is insufficient guidance available to judges, whether the policy has changed over the intervening years, I’m not sure”. But Shipton is clear that there can be no excuses for innocent people receiving harsher tariffs than the innocent for the same crime, differences in when legal proceedings occurred, notwithstanding.

“Well it seems ludicrous that the tariff for the real killer is actually – ultimately – even when we are told that the fact that he allowed innocent people to go jail is taken into account is actually lower than the total amount of time that was spent in prison by the innocent people” [my emphasis].

Significance

Today, the real and sole murderer of 20-year-old Lynette White, becomes eligible to apply for parole. Jeffrey Gafoor admits that he alone is responsible. In the early hours of Saint Valentine’s Day 1988, Lynette was stabbed over fifty times. Her throat was slit. Still Gafoor continued his vicious attack. He stabbed her breasts and chest repeatedly – at least half of the offensive injuries were to that area of her body. The attack continued after she was dead or dying. The brutality obviously went far beyond what was required to kill her. It was cruel and in my view torture. Gafoor has never explained why Lynette suffered this horrific fate. And he has not explained why he stayed silent while five innocent men stood trial for a crime he admits he committed on his own.

The Cardiff Five ((Yusef Abdullahi, John and Ronnie Actie, Stephen Miller and Tony Paris) were charged with Lynette’s murder in December 1988. Almost two years later the Actie cousins were acquitted and the Cardiff Three were wrongfully convicted. It is now acknowledged to be one of Britain’s most notorious miscarriages of justice. It was quite obviously a sexually motivated homicide, even if that was not the label in use in the 1980s and ’90s.

Professor Dave Barclay conducted a review of the scientific evidence, which led t the vindication of the Cardiff Five and a measure of actual justice for the memory of Lynette White. He explains the significance of the crime being a sexually motivated homicide. “All but a very few are on the breasts, but sheʼs had her neck cut as well and wrists and so on”, he said. “Thereʼs a slash across the face. Itʼs a sexually motivated homicide – full stop. [I]tʼs a sexually motivated homicide and donʼt forget those stab wounds are through the puffa jacket and clothing and yet theyʼre still, theyʼre all concentrated on the breasts. Itʼs a single male sexually motivated homicide” [my emphasis].

So why the emphasis? Sexually motivated homicides are almost always committed by one man acting on his own, like Gafoor. Sometimes two vicious people combine and encourage each other to commit such crimes. Barclay and others cannot provide a single example in all the annals of crime where a murder like this was committed by five men, who made accomplices of two other sex workers, but let them live after committing such an evil crime. And all of this was allegedly done without leaving any trace, tying them to the scene or victim in total darkness. Sadly, Barclay has never given evidence about all this and more. So what would he have said if he had been given the chance? “Interestingly I give evidence more in Holland and places like that where they seem quite happy to have people give an overview”, he said. “I would have said whereʼs the evidence for any of that bullshit? I might even have said that in court”.

Evidence-led

Barclay demonstrated that the crime-scene evidence, forensic pathology, forensic psychology and blood distribution pattern was only consistent with one explanation. Lynette was murdered by one person acting on his own. That person, by his own admission and guilty plea – and evidence – was Jeffrey Charles Gafoor. For at least nine months the investigation followed the credible evidence – the crime-scene and forensic science wasn’t lying, but the original investigation took a diversion. It derailed the inquiry.

“[I]f you have two possibilities, you need very persuasive evidence to go for the least likely, so youʼve got a single male arguing with a prostitute over a deal and thatʼs what the scientist thought for nine months, or youʼve got this thing where Angela Psaila, [Mark] Grommek, at least and maybe somebody else and the five accused are all tearing round this room, sawing at peopleʼs necks and trying to cut their hands – stuff like this”, Barclay says.

“Angela Psailaʼs supposed to be asked to cut the neck or hands, I canʼt remember, or the wrist, so thatʼs so inherently improbable on every possible level: psychologically, practically and just they couldnʼt do it in that dark room without leaving footwear and finger-marks in blood and if you actually consider something I did after I totalled up the number of people that were supposed to have held the bloody knife”, he continues. “Thatʼs four people, so there are four people with blood on their hands and theyʼre going out without leaving finger-marks in blood or whatever, so I think that was a major thing. Occamʼs Razor is a thing that we use a lot in forensic science, ʻin all probability, the simplest explanation is the correct oneʼ, and you have to be really sure that the simplest explanation isnʼt correct and that was something that was not done either”.

The Cost of Silence

The methods that Barclay used in his review and subsequent work on this case were available in the 1980s and ’90s. There was no reason for this miscarriage of justice to be allowed to occur. Jeffrey Gafoor was the one person who knew for certain that not only were the Cardiff Five innocent, but that they were suffering a grave injustice for his crime. He chose to stay silent and let their lives be destroyed Ronnie Actie and Yusef Abdullahi both died before reaching fifty. John Actie, Stephen Miller and Tony Paris still endure the unjustifiable whispering campaigns in a case that disgraces justice. Meanwhile, the real killer, becomes eligible to apply for parole today after completing a tariff that was incorrectly applied and failed miserably to reflect the crimes Gafoor committed.

There is no excuse for the lives of the Cardiff Five and their families to have been wrecked. There is no excuse for Lynette’s family to have been denied justice for so long. While Gafoor is not responsible for justice miscarrying, his cowardly decision to refuse to take any responsibility for his crime when it mattered destroyed several lives. Do the courses and rehabilitative exercises that he experiences in prison to prepare him for parole bear this in mind? If not, why not? The real and sole killer received an inappropriately lenient tariff that further insults all the victims of this tawdry injustice – one that simply won’t go away until justice is allowed to reign once and for all.

Scandalous

Tomorrow is Mother’s Day. With a cruel irony – cruel because 20-year-old Lynette White was denied the chance of motherhood that she desired – her murderer becomes eligible to apply for parole after a serving a paltry thirteen years. Twenty-eight years ago on Saint Valentine’s Day Lynette was the victim of what was then the most brutal murder of its type in Welsh history. She was stabbed over fifty times. Her throat was slit more than once. Her murderer continued stabbing her as she lay dying, or even dead.

Tomorrow, of all days, Jeffrey Gafoor, her self-confessed sole killer, completes the excessively lenient tariff that was imposed on him by Mr Justice (Sir John) Royce almost ten years ago. It was a tariff strewn with error, but there’s none as blind as those who refuse to see.

Verging on the sadistic?

When giving his reasons for imposing the tariff, Royce said that Lynette’s murder, “verged on the sadistic”. Lloyd Paris – brother of Tony, who was one of three men wrongly convicted of Lynette’s murder in 1990 – disagrees. “I would say the man was wrong”, he said. “It is sadistic. Well, that was the most sadistic thing that ever happened around me”.

Is there any doubt that it was sadistic? Not for Lloyd Paris.

“Totally, you know. He [Gafoor] says something like, ‘I can remember stabbing her a few times, but I can’t remember the rest. It’s all a haze’. Well he should be able to. Someone should be showing him the facts of what he done, so it’s not a haze no more, so when he starts quoting things, he can say, ‘Yeah, it was a haze but I’ve been told that this was the damage’”.

And he’s not alone in thinking that Lynette’s murder was sadistic. There’s not much that surprises the Western Mail’s Chief Reporter, Martin Shipton, but this does. “Well I don’t know what his perception of the threshold of sadism is, but mine certainly, it would seem, isn’t lower than his” Shipton said with incredulity at the suggestion that it could be seen as anything other than sadistic.

Consequences

It had a considerable effect. If Lynette’s murder had been termed sadistic, the starting point could have been thirty years rather than the fifteen that Royce decided was appropriate.

“Well that’s obviously made a considerable difference, though I’m not clear why he has come to that conclusion, because obviously fifty stab wounds is much more than would be required to kill someone”, Shipton said. “Well that’s a considerable difference clearly. I suppose the prospect this man could be out after fifteen years is quite disturbing given the level of violence that was involved in the crime”.

Lloyd Paris goes further. “That’s where he should have started – simple as”, he said. “It is sadistic. It don’t verge on nothing, you know. The damage done to that poor girl was horrific, so how he could say it verges on sadistic is a joke”.

And there were other problems too. Lynette’s murder was exceptionally brutal. However, there was another serious aggravating circumstance – one that Royce viewed as the most important. Gafoor had allowed five innocent men to go to prison for a total of sixteen years for a crime that he knew he had committed on his own. The tariff should fit the crimes and in this case it plainly did not.

Having set his starting point at fifteen years Royce thought that he could only allow a third for aggravating circumstances. With that starting point he had to include both the brutality of Lynette’s murder and allowing the innocent to suffer in the aggravating circumstances. Five years for both of those aggravating circumstances? “No”, an outraged Lloyd Paris said. “No. Five years is not enough”. It is hard to disagree, especially as Royce only allowed four and a half for both.

Limits

Max Hill QC suggests that there was no limit on Royce regarding aggravating circumstances. “It [a document published by the Sentencing Council] makes it clear that the Coroners and Justice Act, which is the vehicle for this, expects courts to sentence according to the guidelines, but if the court is satisfied that it’s according to the interests of justice to do so, that court can do so and that to me is a clear signal that if there is an unusual feature in a case, which might be an unusual feature that mitigates downwards or an unusual feature that aggravates upwards, every judge has the ability to take that into account and to act on it”, Hill said.

“And so, just before we get into any detail, if you are sentencing someone whose been proven on scientific evidence to be guilty of a serious crime and you are told that there was an earlier prosecution, which led to conviction at a time when the real culprit was living in this jurisdiction and, as it were, did nothing to come forward or to assist, the sentencing judge on being told that, is entitled, using the interests of justice safety valve, to say, ‘Well that is a unique feature of this case and I don’t need anything in black and white in my guidelines to tell me that I can treat that as an aggravating feature’”, he continued, but that was not the issue – the amount was.

After he had taken mitigation into account, Royce decided that the very serious aggravating circumstances only outweighed mitigation by a year. “No, it don’t reflect the enormity”, Lloyd Paris says. “It don’t reflect anything. One year is nothing”.

Miscategorised

But these are far from the only errors of judgement to plague this case. Lynette had not been raped, or sexually assaulted and she was fully clothed, yet this was a sexually motivated homicide. “All but a very few are on the breasts, but sheʼs had her neck cut as well and wrists and so on”, Barclay explains. “Thereʼs a slash across the face. Itʼs a sexually motivated homicide – full stop”.

Could there be any doubt? Not according to Barclay and he should know. He has conducted several reviews of homicides, including Lynette’s. “No there cannot be and I use it in my lectures to forensic psychology students and as soon as I say, what sort of murder is this and as soon as I show the picture without the puffa jacket, itʼs a sexually motivated homicide and donʼt forget those stab wounds are through the puffa jacket and clothing and yet theyʼre still, theyʼre all concentrated on the breasts. Itʼs a single male sexually motivated homicide”.

So was it sadistic? “Well it is quite sadistic doing that sort of stuff”, he said. “No, itʼs a sexually motivated homicide. Sexually motivated homicides are not necessarily sadistic”. Although he would not necessarily use the term sadistic, this was the missing link – this showed that the violence suffered by Lynette was indeed sexually motivated and that should have been considered. The judge mentioned that twenty-five wounds were to her breasts, but tellingly he does not describe it as a sexually motivated homicide, which begs the question, why wasn’t he told that by the prosecution?

Further Error

Having set his starting point at fifteen years, Royce detailed how the policy at the relevant time was to start at twelve years. He felt bound to do the same, but was he? Two other murders that occurred in Cardiff – both sexually motivated and I would say sadistic suggest otherwise. Geraldine Palk was the victim of an even more brutal murder than Lynette in December 1990. Her murderer, Mark Hampson was brought to justice around the same time as Gafoor.

And in 1996 Karen Skipper was murdered. Her estranged husband Phillip was rightly acquitted in 1997. Her real murderer, John Pope, was convicted of her murder in 2009 and again at retrial in 2011. Lady Justice (Dame Heather) Hallett chose a starting point of fifteen years for Hampson. Mr Justices (Sir Nigel) Davis and (Sir Roderick) Evans selected a starting point of fifteen years for Pope. Davis, Evans and Hallett stuck to fifteen years. Either they are wrong or Royce was. There appear to be several grounds to appeal against the leniency of Gafoor’s tariff, but that was not done at the time.

Adding insult to injury, Gafoor appears to have received a very lenient tariff and even that was applied wrongly. At least two of the innocent Cardiff Three, the late Yusef Abdullahi and Tony Paris received harsher tariffs for the same crime. Gafoor could show remorse, do all the courses and progress towards parole in a system designed to help rehabilitate him, while the Cardiff Three could not without admitting a lie that would have prevented their eventual vindication. And now the real killer becomes eligible to apply for parole on Mother’s Day.

Radio Cardiff

Part Four with Georgina Sammut

Satish Sekar explains the very lenient tariff that the real murderer Jeffrey Gafoor received for atrocious murder of Lynette White. He details the deficiencies in the tariff system, how they came about and the problems of innocence in such a system. Sekar explains the setting of the tariff for the murder of Lynette and how the judge made mistakes determining the tariff and in the balancing of aggravating circumstances against mitigation. Sekar explains his motivation in continuing to fight for justice. He then explains the damage done to the victims of injustice and the failure to provide after-care. Sekar argues for a Truth and Justice Commission rather than a Public Inquiry. He explains the failure of Royal Commissions to address the problems as governments can pick and chose, which bits they want to adopt.

Part Five with Georgina Sammut

Satish Sekar explains the work of The Fitted-In Project, highlighting the extent of vindication throughout the world. He argues that vindication has the power to change criminal justice systems. The FIP is working with organisations in the USA. He details the problems with the Grand Jury system, illustrated by the recent case of Michael Brown. Sekar argues for Truth and Justice Commissions over all the issues in different jurisdictions. He also explains how they would work, be constituted and what he hopes it would achieve.

Part Six with Georgina Sammut

Satish Sekar explains the projects of The Fitted-In Project. He explains that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Attorney General failed to appeal against the leniency of the tariff imposed on Gafoor. He then details the lack of after-care and how the provisions of the government scheme excluded the vast majority of victims. Sekar highlights the benefits of sport to assist in the after-care of victims of miscarriages of justice. Michael O’Brien has benefited from it. Sekar also mentions the Dylan O’Brien Foundation.

Discussion hosted by Dr Feelgood aka Kervin Julien

Guests – Gregg L. Greer, Alex M. Salazar and Satish Sekar

Kervin Julien hosts a lively discussion on police brutality, miscarriages of justice and the lack of accountability over it on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. Former police officer, turned activist, Alex Salazar details the battle for justice over brutality in Ferguson and New York, while Gregg Greer, President of Freedom First International, gave his perspective on the struggle for accountability in the USA. Satish Sekar spoke about the Crown Prosecution Service failing to ensure accountability, especially in the Lynette White Inquiry.

Discussion hosted by Dr Feelgood aka Kervin Julien

Guests – Gregg L. Greer, Alex M. Salazar, Satish Sekar and David Whitt 

Kervin Julien continues to moderate the discussion on police brutality and the lack of accountability. Towards the end of the programme one of the activists leading the fight for accountability in Ferguson, David Whitt, joins in. Julien has promised to return to these issues soon.

]]> https://fittedin.org/fittedin/?feed=rss2&p=949 0 https://fittedin.org/fittedin/?p=926 https://fittedin.org/fittedin/?p=926#comments Sat, 17 Jan 2015 18:52:24 +0000 http://fittedin.org/fittedin/?p=926 Read more]]> By Satish Sekar © Satish Sekar (January 20^th 2012)

Exoneration and Vindication

Exoneration on appeal or acquittal at trial is where most miscarriage of justice cases are left – exoneration without acceptance of innocence. Unlike most I refused to stop investigating, believing that it was possible to resolve this case fully by finding the real killer.

The Cardiff Five were innocent, but Lynette White remained as robbed of justice as she had ever been and her family and society too were horribly cheated. This was and remains the difference-making miscarriage of justice in Britain, but only because it was possible to find the real killer and vindicate the originally accused, proving their innocence beyond doubt and that in turn would open the door to real change and not just for them.¹

Vindication of the Cardiff Five was essential. It began the process of acknowledging what had gone wrong and possibly redressing it. Outrageously the police were allowed to dictate the terms of establishing what went wrong – a process that ultimately failed miserably and created new victims in the process.

Historic

In July 2003 Jeffrey Gafoor became the first murderer in British history to plead guilty to a murder that had previously resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Like South Wales Police, he apologised to both Lynette’s family and the Cardiff Five.

To their eternal shame no other individual or organisation involved in the miscarrying of justice in this scandalous injustice has apologised, let alone taken responsibility for their roles in it. But justice requires more than apologies – far more – and it should not depend on vindication, which occurs too rarely.

Facilitation or Acquiescence

I have been involved in miscarriage of justice work for over two decades. The role of the criminal justice system in facilitating or at least acquiescing in miscarriages of justice can no longer be ignored. The Cardiff Five have been vindicated and it was a rare case where the poor performance of a lawyer – it ought to have been plural – was acknowledged, but several others have never been accepted.

For example, the tragic case of Stefan Kiszko was one where the performance of his QC disgraced every concept of justice. There is no doubt that Kiszko was innocent. He was accused of the murder of a child and dealt with severely by other prisoners unaware of his vulnerability and of comprehensive proof of his innocence.

Kiszko was vindicated 32 years after the appalling murder of eleven-year-old Lesley Molseed, but it was far too late. Kisko was long dead, but evidence of his innocence had been known for many years by then. It should have prevented his wrongful conviction and the scandalous theft of his life by an an incompetent system that failed to ensure that proof of his innocence was clearly presented to the jury.

Outrageous

His defence QC, later to become Home Secretary, Leader of the House of Lords and Governor of Bermuda, Baron David Waddington, made significant and outrageous errors of judgement. Despite being bombarded with masses of unused papers at the opening of Kiszko’s trial, Waddington did not seek an adjournment to go through it.

Waddington pursued a defence of diminished responsibility despite Kiszko refusing to authorise it. But the worst error of all proved Kiszko’s innocence beyond doubt and later the guilt of Ronald Castree. The murderer had deposited his semen on Molseed’s clothing. It did not match Kiszko and was later proved to have been deposited by Castree.

Even at his trial it was obvious that the semen proved Kiszko innocent. The former tax-clerk could not produce semen. The failure to present this evidence of innocence disgraces every concept of justice and Kiszko’s then defence lawyers failed him and society miserably.

This was a truly appalling miscarriage of justice – one of Britain’s worst ever – compounded by the fact that Kiszko died aged just 41 in December 1993, having been released after 17 years wrongful imprisonment the previous year. He never recovered from his ordeal – an entirely preventable one.

But it should not require vindication to learn the lessons of cases like this and there are others which will almost certainly never end in vindication. What about them?