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”.

Misinterpreted

Yusef Abdullahi was wrongly convicted in 1990 of the Valentine’s Day 1988 murder of Lynette White along with Stephen Miller and Tony Paris. John Actie and his cousin the late Ronnie Actie were acquitted. All five were vindicated in 2003 when Jeffrey Gafoor pleaded guilty to Lynette’s murder. It was the first time that this had happened in Britain through DNA testing.

The Miscarriages of Justice Project (MJP) was established that year after a Home Office Working Group had considered the issue, but their consultant misinterpreted his terms of reference and excluded anyone whose conviction was quashed on a first appeal. And if, like Colin Stagg, they had never been convicted at all, they were not even considered for help by the Working Group. The scheme – a limited advice service – was restricted to those referred back for appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, or an out of time appeal.

Untruths

“The Ministry of Justice funds the Miscarriage of Justice Support Service (MJSS) to help those who have had their convictions quashed by the Court of Appeal,” said the Minister of State at Ministry of Justice, Baron (Tom) McNally in a written response to Baron (John) Laird’s query.

“The MJSS provides help with issues such as healthcare, accommodation, finance and relationships”, McNally wrote. “The MJSS’ funding has recently been extended for a further year to March 2012 and the Ministry of Justice is working with it to improve the support they provide”.

There is a slight problem with this response; it is not true. The remit and funding agreement of the MJSS does not allow it to help anyone whose conviction was quashed on an in-time first appeal and never had. It is restricted in who it helps and actually excludes the overwhelming ajority of victims of miscarriages of justice.

Fend for Themselves

Almost eight years ago I asked the Miscarriages of Justice Project as it was called then to go and visit Yusef Abdullahi and Tony Paris in Cardiff. They agreed, but reneged on the agreement, claiming that it would affect their funding and therefore ability to help others. It was an uncaring response from people whose job it was to provide care.

Abdullahi in particular really needed help then. It was the least he deserved, but instead he was left to fend for himself. The MJP decided that it could not help him, because he did not come under their remit, which has not been changed. They did not even point out the absurdity of not being permitted to provide help to demonstrably innocent people. They even had the cheek to ask me to recommend their service to others.

Disgraceful

If he had asked for their help, he would have been referred to his local Citizen’s Advice Bureau (CAB) and they would have been advised that he would call and what to do, rather than receive help from those who had experience of these issues. What use is that? Abdullahi deserved the care he needed – nothing less.

Lord McNally really ought to have known this and the government should right this wrong without further delay. It is already too late for Abdullahi – he died last month aged just 49. Despite being vindicated Abdullahi had been excluded from receiving assistance from the MJSS. The same applies to Ronnie Actie and Phillip Skipper, neither of whom was convicted. They have other things in common. They were vindicated and died without reaching 50. They didn’t qualify for help either. Nor did Colin Stagg. What kind of system is this? What kind of way is this for society to treat its victims?