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].

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.

Martin Shipton – Chief Reporter of the Western Mail and Echo

The Fitted-In Project is saddened that once again the BBC has chosen to marginalise our work on the Lynette White Inquiry, especially that of our founder and CEO, Satish Sekar. We are very disappointed that tonight’s Panorama programme has chosen to rewrite history. For an accurate record of that history-making case see Sekar’s books Fitted In: The Cardiff 3 and the Lynette White Inquiry and The Cardiff Five: Innocent Beyond Any Doubt, which was recently published by Waterside Press.

Michael Mansfield QC

• “Satish Sekar has been assiduous in following the events surrounding the murder of Lynette White in Cardiff in 1988. From the beginning he questioned the techniques that were used and decisions of the authorities in regard to this case and many of his views – which appeared marginal at the time – turned out to be accurate or close to the truth in a way that has certainly helped the cause of justice and investigation. As the local MP I came to respect and admire his thoroughness and persistence … His contribution has been enormous. … Satish is right to continue to ask questions both in respect of the workings of the criminal justice system and the policies that are pursued in a society that seeks to be governed by the Rule of Law.”

The Rt. Hon. Alun Michael JP, MP

The Fitted-In Project is concerned that the impact of the work conducted by its members has been marginalised. Incredibly this includes Professor Dave Barclay, the former Head of Physical Evidence at the National Crime Faculty. Barclay’s role in correcting the miscarriage of justice that befell the Cardiff Five has never been properly acknowledged by media. Sekar’s latest book explains the pivotal role played by Barclay.

Professor Dave Barclay

Sekar was told immediately after the convictions of the Cardiff Three were quashed to move on to other cases. He refused, seeing the potential for change and understanding that the Cardiff Five had to be vindicated – proved innocent beyond doubt by the conviction of the real killer. Other media left him to fight alone. That included the BBC, which only began covering it again after his work had borne fruit. It ignored both him and the work of The Fitted-In Project in that coverage.

Duncan Campbell

• “The Lynette White murder case, with its long-drawn-out repercussions, has now become one of the most important in the entire history of British criminal justice. This is entirely because of the tireless work and extraordinary insight of Satish Sekar, who has fought for many years to achieve justice for all concerned.”

Bob Woffinden

Raphael Rowe (Reporter for the BBC’s Panorama)

“Satish is a dedicated investigative journalist who worked hard to investigate the background to the jailing of the Cardiff Three for the 1988 murder of Lynette White. The success of their appeal against their convictions is largely down to his hard work. He wrote the story of this case and his subsequent campaign to have the case reinvestigated in his book ‘Fitted In: The Cardiff Three and the Lynette White Inquiry’. I wanted to write about the forensic aspects of the case in my book Cold Case Files – and he was very generous with his help”.

Liz Porter (Journalist at Sunday Age, Australia)

“Satish is extremely thorough in his investigations and is doggedly determined to get to the bottom of things. He is meticulous and has an eye for detail when looking at cases of miscarriages of justice.”

Lovejit Dhaliwal (Director of Sharp Curiosity Productions)

 “Satish is an excellent investigative journalist – very committed and persistent”.

Richard Keeble (Professor of Journalism at the University of Lincoln)

“Satish is an author of ‘Fitted In: The Cardiff 3 and the Lynette White Inquiry‘ and the recently published “The Cardiff Five: Innocent Beyond Any Doubt“. He is also a journalist, academic, researcher and expert, especially for those who have suffered miscarriages of justice. Although at times, Satish is highly critical of the criminal justice system, he only challenges from a position of desiring improvement for the benefit of all, whether they be the investigator or the investigated. Members of the criminal justice system as well as academia could well benefit from hearing the experiences and lessons learnt by Satish over the past 20 plus years of academic and field research that he has undertaken.

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera (Lecturer and Director of S-Team Consultancy)

“Satish is an outstanding journalist, researcher and author whose work has achieved justice for people who would otherwise have had no-one to defend them. His grasp of detail and tenacity is a model for all reporters.”

Alan Slingsby (Partner, Edition Periodicals)

“Satish is a dedicated investigator with a passion for justice, both to correct miscarriages to absolve the innocent, and to identify and bring the true perpetrator(s) to account. His dogged determination and indefatigable efforts to explore overlooked or disregarded facts and possibilities, and to publish his findings publicly, have made a significant contribution to the Criminal Justice System in Britain and abroad.”

Robert (Bob) Parsons (Forensic Chemist/Alcohol Toxicologist, Indian River Crime Laboratory, USA)

“In my dealings with Satish I found him to be reliable, extremely knowledgeable and passionate about his subject. His enthusiasm and commitment to the project of righting miscarriages of justice was highly commendable. He works very hard in this field and in ridding sport of racism.”

Alun Owen (Territory manager for Random House Publishers)

“Satish is an investigative journalist and has campaigned against the miscarriages of justice. He stays involved with the wrongfully convicted (and wrongly accused), even after proof of innocence, and works against racism. I would highly recommend Satish in his fields of expertise.”

Bill Pelke (President of The Journey of Hope…From Violence to Healing)

“I have worked with Satish on several occasions since the 1990s. I have always found him to be imaginative, diligent, resourceful, personable and a great team player.”

Geoff Small (P/D of Geoff Small Inc.)

“Satish is a diligent and conscientious journalist, who is trustworthy and very reliable”.

John McManus (Former Project Coordinator of The Miscarriages of Justice Organisation)

“Satish is hard-working and painstaking in all that he undertakes. His research is second to none. He pays significant attention to the important detail surrounding an issue which he will tenaciously advance whilst being open to the views of others.”

Stuart Hutton (Senior Partner at Hutton’s Solicitors & Advocates)

“Satish is an experienced human rights and civil liberties advocate and writer whose work has benefited many people. He works hard, is afraid of no-one and puts his heart and soul into fighting cases of injustice.”

Mark Metcalf (Freelance journalist, author and trustee of FIP)

 “Satish is reliable, informed, thorough, and dependable. And has proved to be a veritable one man army in the pursuit of justice on countless occasions.”

Derek Miller (Journalist and Editor)

“Satish Sekar’s meticulous attention to detail and dogged determination to pursue an objective was key to unravelling a complex murder case that had resulted in an appalling miscarriage of justice. His commitment to establishing the truth cannot be questioned.”

Martin Shipton (Chief Reporter of The Western Mail)

“Satish is an experienced and able author and investigative journalist with a long track record in campaigning against miscarriages of justice. He continues acting as a pressure group to alleviate the problems which those wrongfully convicted suffer in the long term, even after they have been vindicated. He is also actively involved in anti-racism initiatives, particularly in football, and seeks to improve racial equality by increasing the sporting opportunities available for disadvantaged groups.”

Dave Barclay (Retired Forensic Scientist)

Top qualities: Great Results, Expert, High Integrity
“Satish is a determined and meticulous researcher. His work is always reliable.”

Tim Gopsill (Former Editor of The Journalist)