Perjury Under Duress

Mark Grommek, Learnne Vilday and Angela Psaila were sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment for perjury on December 19^th. They are the first witnesses to be convicted of perjury in a miscarriage of justice case, where even the prosecution accepted that their allegations of police malpractice, which included violence and threats of wrongful imprisonment, were true.

The case of the Cardiff Five (Yusef Abdullahi, John and Ronnie Actie, Stephen Miller and Tony Paris) was the first miscarriage of justice n the DNA age in Britain to be resolved by the conviction of the real murderer, Jeffrey Gafoor. The four alleged eyewitnesses – Paul Atkins was deemed unfit to stand trial – were the first to be charged with any offence in that case since Gafoorʼs conviction on July 4^th 2003.

Grommek Vilday and Psaila pleaded guilty to perjury in October. There is no doubt that those witnesses perjured themselves, as they have admitted it and the conviction of Gafoor proved it, but such cases are rare and this is unique in terms of it being accepted that they were mistreated by police.

Grommek gave evidence that he was subjected to threats of violence by a then Detective Inspector Richard Powell, before he gave accounts that falsely implicated Abdullahi and Ronnie Actie,. His claims of police malpractice were accepted by the prosecution – no police officers had been charged over this case, although several remain on bail.

The conviction of Grommek, Psaila and Vilday is controversial. Will they be only witnesses to face trial over a miscarriage of justice case in such circumstances? Vilday was also put under intolerable pressure as was Psaila who believed that her blood had been found in the room when Lynette was murdered until told differently in 2004. She reacted with shock at the news.

Discredited Predecessor

There is no shortage of miscarriage of justice cases, but none of the major cases have resulted in such an investigation let alone convictions. The closest is the case of former Greater Manchester police officer Ged Corley, who was accused of a series of armed robberies. After it became clear that he was on duty at the time some offences occurred, several of Manchesterʼs criminal fraternity were allowed to change their accounts and accuse him of master-minding the robberies instead.

After his convictions were quashed in March 1990 an investigation resulted in perjury convictions, but of the armed robbers who had framed him. The only convictions that were obtained of police officers in that case were because they pleaded guilty to lesser offences, but not perjury or conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. That came from one of the biggest investigations that the Police Complaints Authority (PCA), the predecessor of the equally flawed Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) had ever conducted.

Context

Less than two weeks after Corleyʼs convictions were quashed, the Court of Appeal, headed by the discredited then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane, freed Alban Turner, but in a manner that left a bad taste. It was clear that crucial witness Kevin Sarbutts had lied. The crucial issues were what lies had he told and why had he told them.

Sarbuttsʼ retraction was referred to the now abolished PCA. The investigation was huge and utterly flawed by design. It did not investigate whether Sarbutts had lied about Turner – just his allegations of police malpractice. Turnerʼs guilt or innocence was crucial, but it was peripheral at best. As such the context was missed and the investigation lacked a crucial focus.

Sarbutts was convicted of perjury in 1994 and sentenced to three years imprisonment after the jury asked for leniency. His claims that he had lied to frame an innocent man were not part of the case against him. The PCA has been replaced, but is the IPCC adequate, especially in dealing with perjury in miscarriage of justice cases?

A Deeply Flawed Process
We had hoped that the inquiry into what went wrong, which began in July 2003, would mean that our task had been completed. There was a lot of material to go through and the whole process took over eight years only to end in abject failure. Thirty-four people involved in that case – 20 were serving or retired police officers – were arrested and interviewed under caution on suspicion of offences including perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. South Wales Police insisted on conducting the investigation themselves. This was a preventable error. If anything went wrong, which it did, the failure would be blamed on them whether it was their fault or not.

The IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission) became involved in 2004 and later the (CPS) Crown Prosecution Service were consulted too. The CPS’s Serious Crimes Department eventually decided which of the 34 would face trial and who would not. Despite only taking silk recently (becoming a Queen’s Counsel) recently Nicholas Dean was appointed to lead the prosecutions. The CPS has never explained why it chose such a comparatively inexperienced QC to lead such important prosecutions.

In 2007 it decided to prosecute the so-called core witnesses – the alleged eye-witnesses – first. Paul Atkins was deemed unfit to stand trial, which left Mark Grommek, Angela Psaila and Learnne Vilday to stand trial on three counts of perjury which began on October 17th 2008. This decision was tactically inept and would have huge consequences later. It would lead to a miscarriage of justice – the second in the same case. It would also demonstrate the fundamental unfairness of the laws on duress – a defence which was denied to these defendants even though everyone present at their trial including judge, jury and prosecution accepted that they had been bullied into making those statements by the police.

The Fruit of the Poisoned Tree

Unlike many The Fitted-In Project saw the injustice of what was happening at the time and our CEO Satish Sekar immediately highlighted it in the Fitted-In Journal. The CPS had used the system and law well – cynically in fact. Prosecuting the three witnesses meant that it could not be accused of favouring them, but there was a problem and their lawyers knew it. Their statements and testimony had been studded with inconsistencies and lies and this had been glaringly obvious for 20 years.

These were the very lies that established them as prosecution witnesses against the Cardiff Five. They had been boxed in to commit perjury by these statements. Surely, the way the statements had been obtained was relevant, or at least it should have been.

They had told the same story – the truth for several months in 1988 – until ‘conduct unacceptable in a civilised society’ turned them into prosecution witnesses in November and December 1988. Once those statements were made – the CPS belatedly accepted that these were extracted under duress – they were trapped, knowing that if they deviated from them they could be prosecuted. Now, without trace of irony in the CPS, they were prosecuted for telling the very lies they had been forced to tell.

The CPS knew that it needed to avoid charging them over those statements, as it was part of their case that these witnesses had indeed been bullied and hectored and subjected to treatment that disgraced the criminal justice system. They were charged over the committal hearings and both trials of the Cardiff Five, but not over their statements. That was deliberate, as the Crown would claim that they had ample opportunity to tell the truth after they had been bullied, but did they?

There was no doubt that these witnesses had lied both in their crucial statements and in evidence at the committal hearing of the Cardiff Five and two trials. The questions that needed answering were why and whether they had any free choice in their actions? This was in fact the classic example of the fruit of the poisoned tree and contributed to yet another miscarriage of justice – something we highlighted when our CEO dubbed them the ‘New Cardiff Three’.

To prosecute people for telling lies that prosecuting authorities accept they were forced to tell is grossly unfair to put it mildly and to deny them access to the clearest proof that they too were victims of scandalous conduct denied them their right to a fair trial.

Continue to Exceptional Injustice P.4