Justice Warrior

Miscarriage of justice survivor and committed campaigner for justice Gerry Conlon has died at his home in Belfast aged 60 after a long illness. If they live to be a 100 few people make the impact that Gerry Conlon did. Conlon endured 15 long years of wrongful imprisonment along with Patrick Armstrong, Paul Hill and Carole Richardson (the Guildford Four).

October 19^th 1989 was a day that shook the foundations of British justice to its core. The smug complacency that it was the best in the world was laid bare. A procession of innocent people blinking in the daylight of freedom, fists clenched in the air followed the Guildford Four to freedom as conviction after conviction was quashed, but for many the euphoria soon faded as the outrages of life took their toll.

Committed

There was no after-care provided by the State that had so egregiously wronged so many people when Conlon emerged to face the worldʼs media. Over a decade would pass before a new government, which despite its many wrongs, at least had the decency to apologise to the Guildford Four for what they went through.

Despite his failing health Conlon remained committed to social justice, using his Facebook page to highlight causes he held dear. Conlon was a warrior for justice warrior before armchair campaigning became fashionable. He was an inspiration to many along with Paddy Hill and Michael OʼBrien and the late Yusef Abdullahi in particular.

A True Hero

Conlon campaigned for others. The Birmingham Six were the first, but not last. I met him in 1991. He listened attentively as I told him of a shameful miscarriage – naïvely. There was little or nothing I could tell him that he didnʼt know for himself – that he had not experienced. He spoke to their families and encouraged their campaign. He went to Cardiff and helped put the Cardiff Threeʼs Campaign on the map.

The rest of what happened in that case is history, but it owes Gerry Conlon a huge debt and so do I. We have lost a champion of justice and the world is a worse place without him. What would have happened if Gerry and his supporters had not been so tenacious. Would that glorious day in 1989 have happened? Would justice have prevailed for the many that followed him? Thankfully it did happen. Gerry Conlon, you will be missed.

Guarantees

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

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

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

Quality

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

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

Scientifically Ludicrous

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

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

Obscene

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Rules of the Game

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

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

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

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

Scrupulously Unfair

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Coded

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

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

Culpable

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

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

Pathetic

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

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

Shameful

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

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

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

All He Ever Wanted

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

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

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

Precedent

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

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

Hope

Two months ago Yusef Abdullahi passed away, aged just 49. It could and should have been different. Eight years ago I helped to arrange care that he desperately needed. Abdullahi was in a terrible state. He was by his own admission, addicted to heroin and had an alcohol problem too. It was a sadly familiar story and those just didn’t tend to end well. Tony Paris wasn’t in as bad a state, but he needed help as well and Stephen Miller was on their doorstep. It came as no surprise that he required help as well. None of them were given the assistance that the State which had wronged them owed them.

The Miscarriages of Justice Project (MJP) had been established in 2003 to provide advice and assistance to victims of miscarriages of justice to help them rebuild their lives, but there was a problem. The scheme excluded the Cardiff Three totally and many others too. Only people whose convictions had been quashed after an out of time appeal or a reference back by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) qualified for help.

Uncaring

This had not been the original intent of Parliament, so they were approached to help anyway. The MJP agreed that it was the perfect opportunity for them and for Abdullahi to illustrate the absurdity of a policy that forced them not to help even in a clear cut miscarriage of justice just because they had the temerity to win their first appeal, but its then Deputy Director Amarjit Kaur pulled the plug.

She claimed that if they even went to see them and assessed their needs, they could lose their funding and not be able to help others, so why had her staff agreed to the visit in the first place? “It’s outrageous,” said miscarriage of justice victim John Kamara. “He was a victim of a miscarriage of justice and clearly needed help. They should have given it to him. What use are they if they won’t help people like Yusef when he needed it?”

Lies

Michael O’Brien, himself a victim of one of Wales’ most notorious miscarriages of justice, raised the issue of people like the Cardiff Three being excluded with the MJP. He even asked, years later, why Abdullahi was not helped when it was promised. He was told that Abdullahi was offered counselling and turned it down.

This is not true. Who says so? Abdullahi for one. Others, including his QC, Roger Backhouse, who helped fill the void created by the lack of care for him, can attest to it. “Yusef was very appreciative of the help that I gave him”, Backhouse said. “He acknowledged and thanked everyone who had taken the trouble to help him.” The MJP was not on that list; he confirmed that he had never received any help from the MJP or offers of help from it.

Long Overdue

After-care for victims of miscarriages of justice was an idea whose time had come at the turn of the millennium. Following Parliamentary questions to then Home Office Ministers Lord Williams of Mostyn and Paul Boateng in the late 1990s, the Home Office’s Probation Unit, which became the National Probation Directorate, established a Working Group in July 2000 to consider how to provide help to victims of miscarriages of justice.

The late Lord Williams had recommended that a voluntary sector organisation that was familiar with resettlement of prisoner issues should develop a national service to provide advice and counselling that was tailored to meet the needs of successful appellants. There was no suggestion in his answer that any groups of victims should be excluded.

Errors of Judgement

We can reveal that despite the clear wishes of Lord Williams, many victims of miscarriages of justice have been denied assistance to rebuild their lives because they did not serve long terms of imprisonment. In fact, they were excluded by an error made by the consultant that the Working Group commissioned to scope the service to be provided.

Peter Shore’s job included devising a service based on the needs of former prisoners who had successfully appealed against their convictions. He also had to investigate the potential number of clients and average length of time served in prison. After that he had to consider whether those who had served the longest should be treated as priority users of the service. There was no suggestion in his terms of reference that prisoners who had served long terms of imprisonment should be the only beneficiaries of the scheme.

But Shore did not follow his terms of reference. The report of the Home Office Working Group itself which made the recommendations that resulted in the MJP being set up makes that clear. “The scoping study looked at the two primary sources of clients in need of an advice service: referrals by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) to the Court of Appeal and out-of-time appeals. The Report notes that 80 per cent of the cases referred by the CCRC in 1999/2000 resulted in success for the appellant. This suggests a likely annual figure of around 15-20 new cases each year. There are also likely to be a small number of additional cases per year arising from successful out-of-time appeals. In total, the annual case load for an advice service is likely to be in the region of 70 cases per year (new referrals prior to release, existing cases – immediately after release – plus cases requiring support beyond the immediate post-release period).” [their emphasis].

It is clear from that passage that Shore never investigated whether people whose convictions had been quashed on an in-time first appeal had any care needs at all. The Working Group had emphasised the wrong part. This is the important bit. “The scoping study looked at the two primary sources of clients in need of an advice service: referrals by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) to the Court of Appeal and out-of-time appeals.”

Shore had just admitted that he had not followed his own terms of reference and had wrongly devised a service that excluded people who had won in time first appeals. Worse still the Home Office Working Group had not only failed to notice that he had not followed his terms of reference, but commended him for his work and established a so-called service that excluded first time successful appellants like the Cardiff Three and also Annette Hewins and Donna Clarke. As a result of these failings the vast majority of successful appellants were excluded from the provision of after-care. Only Fitted-In highlighted this scandal.

Restitution

“Yusef is the only client that I would do this for”, Backhouse reiterated. “The state has a duty to restore people like him to the position they should have been in. They let him down. It is shameful that the consultant did not follow his terms of reference and that the Working Group did not notice his error. Their mistakes denied Yusef and others in his position the help that they needed”.

Abdullahi was fortunate, if that is the right word. He found that there were people who cared enough to help, but he tested their boundaries. He pushed people away hard. They came back time and time again. Eventually he saw that there was another way for him and he took that opportunity. Despite the odd lapse he stuck to the plan that was developed for him, based on his individual needs. Dev Barrah and George Silcott played an important role in helping Abdulahi too.

He managed to overcome some of his demons, but sadly lasting damage had been done and he died too soon. “The way Yusef was treated disgraces our society”, said Backhouse. “I was not surprised that he became a passionate advocate for restitution. His legacy must include an end to this scandal”.

Real Friends

Yusef Abdullahi is the first of the Cardiff Three to die. His recent death has re-opened the debate on the provision of after-care to victims of miscarriages of justice. Abdullahi was just 49 and died without having received any assistance to rebuild his life from the Miscarriages of Justice Support Service (MJSS).

“The state has a duty to restore him to the life that he would have had if the miscarriage of justice had not happened”, said Abdullahi’s QC and champion Roger Backhouse. “He could have gone to university. He was that intelligent. Yusef is the only person that I would do this for”.

Backhouse used his own resources to try to help Abdullahi. Despite his own failing health Backhouse came and saw Abdullahi, arranged medical assistance for him, helped him fill in social security forms and much more besides. He even contributed to an as yet unbroadcast documentary on the subject.

There were others too. Despite being the victim of one of Wales’ most notorious miscarriages of justice and needing help himself Michael O’Brien helped Abdullahi too. “I will never forget that Yusef campaigned for me at a time when few others did”, he said. “I wanted to help him and think it outrageous that he never received help. I took it up with the Miscarriages of Justice Project [MJP] before”. It is now called the Miscarriages of Justice Support Service.

Salvation and Curse

O’Brien welcomed Abdullahi into his home and advised him on some pitfalls and offered help. Winston Silcott rarely gets any credit, but he played a pivotal role in helping Abdullahi both inside and outside of prison. Abdullahi tried to credit him, as Silcott’s assistance gave Abdullahi a purpose to help him cope in prison. Silcott inspired him again when Abdullahi most needed it to get his life back on track outside.

Abdullahi came out of prison in 1992 in a blaze of publicity and embarked on a punishing schedule to highlight the plight of other victims of miscarriages of justice. Within a year he was thoroughly exhausted. It had been both his salvation and curse. Campaigning for others gave him a sense of purpose again and deprived him of time to focus on his problems – they could wait – but the schedule wore him out and down. He needed a break – he’d earned it – but it came at a very high price.

Deprived of the benefit of his cause he sank into the problems that others in his situation had faced before and since. I’d fallen out of touch with him – I had other things on my mind. The outlook for him was bleak and steadily got worse. He turned back to alcohol and drugs and as his demons took over, he slid into depression and an ever downward spiral. So-called friends did little or nothing to help. He was horribly let down, but his story is sadly too common.

Fateful Meeting

It had been the best part of ten years since I’d seen him last. The phone calls and visits had dried up from both of us. He didn’t call me and I didn’t call him. We both had other things going on. The same applied to many others. I still heard about him occasionally if not from him and I didn’t like what I was hearing, but it was his life and he had to be ready to change it, or so I thought then. I was wrong. He needed help desperately, but offering it was not enough.

When I saw him again for the first time in ten years I was shocked. The confident affable young man I’d known and remembered was gone – replaced by a man who looked at least ten years older than he was. He had been worn down by life’s outrages. He turned up to a court hearing in which Jeffrey Gafoor, the man who committed the crime that wrecked Abdullahi’s life, was sent to jail, not having finished his breakfast – a can of Tenants.

I’d seen enough. Something had to be done. Someone had to intervene. If they didn’t he was on borrowed time and not much of it. I approached the MJP and professionals and representatives too, outlining my concern that if he wasn’t helped soon he would not survive long.

We developed a package of after-care just for him. Society had wronged him and others like him. Now it could put it right by helping to rebuild his life. It wasn’t ideal as he had specific care needs, but the MJP was there to help. It had been set up that very year precisely to help victims of miscarriages of justice. Surely it would intervene. It simply had to.

A Shameful Betrayal

Abdullahi had issues requiring medical intervention. He needed help to conquer his addictions, but that required medical permission. All it needed was an approach to his doctor to recommend the course of treatment and help required, but not just for him. There was no point helping him give up hard and addictive drugs if he was going to be sent back into the same circumstances that he found so intolerable that he needed heroin to block out his woes in the first place.

With others using around him it was inevitable that he would relapse – it was when, not if. Miraculously a solution was found. They would all be helped at the same time. All it required was his doctor’s recommendation, but who could get through to him? Why should he trust the so-called friends who hadn’t been there for ten years when he needed it – and yes I’m as responsible as the rest over this.

I approached the MJP. I stressed the urgency of the situation – it was the summer of 2003. They were asked to go and see them and develop a plan to help. Even the limited service that they offered was enough to get things started. They agreed to go to Cardiff to see him and Tony Paris. It should have been the start of the rest of his life. Instead he was let down.

The then Deputy Director of the MJP, Amarjit Kaur, reneged on the agreement to go and see them. She claimed that it would affect their funding and mean that they could not help other victims of miscarriages of justice.

Nearly eight years later Abdullahi is dead and the disgraceful situation that denied him help has not been resolved. The MJSS was set up to provide assistance to victims of miscarriages of justice rebuild their lives, so why was Abdullahi left out when he badly needed help?

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.

Injustice

Over a quarter of a century ago Michael OʼBrien was wrenched from his family. He suffered a grave miscarriage of justice that robbed him and his family of more than a decade of his life. He always knew that he was innocent of the robbery and murder of Cardiff newspaper vendor, Phillip Saunders – it should have been obvious to others too. During the dark days of his wrongful imprisonment – he was wrongfully convicted along with Ellis Sherwood and Darren Hall – OʼBrien needed an outlet.

He found it in football. He was a Cardiff City and Wales fan. For 90 minutes every weekend he could forget his woes and support his team. In his mind he was on the terraces willing his team on. It helped him cope. OʼBrien was one of the main inspirations for both the Fitted-In Project and Empower-Sport launching our project A Sporting Chance of After-care.

Inspiration

Football had given OʼBrien hope when he needed it most. He survived the miscarriage of justice and he fought tirelessly for others – he still does through the Dylan OʼBrien Foundation.¹ Victims of miscarriages of justice are largely forgotten about by society. The euphoria of their release, even in high profile cases quickly wears off. Support and assistance was hard to come by. Many retreat into their shells again unwilling to engage with people who do not and cannot understand.

But football had helped once. Perhaps it could again. Not only had it helped OʼBrien, but anti-apartheid icon Nelson Mandela and his comrades on the infamous Robben Island, too.

Football Unites

We decided that perhaps football could help again. We approached the Football Association of Wales to provide the practical support that our project needed. They readily agreed. It was fitting that OʼBrien was the first person to be helped under our scheme. Along with a trusted person – an essential part of the scheme – OʼBrien was provided with seats to support Wales against Cyprus. He enjoyed the experience greatly including the result as Wales beat Cyprus 2-1 to remain top of Group B. It helped him too

“Satish should be commended for setting up this project, which can benefit those who have suffered a miscarriage of justice”, OʼBrien said. “I thoroughly enjoyed the Wales v Cyprus game and I am extremely grateful to Satish and the FAW for taking part in this project and hope they continue to support this in the future”.

1 The Foundation was established in memory of OʼBrienʼs son whose death aged two could and should have been prevented. Together with his wife Claire, they campaign for greater awareness of the condition that Dylan suffered from and to help others. Dylan suffered from a rare, but tragically undiagnosed condition Mucopollysaccharidosis (see www.thedylanobrienfoundation.com for further information on the Dylan OʼBrien Foundation).