Review?

Fed up of the failure to get justice or even an adequate review of the conduct of a disgraced pathologist, a prisoner maintaining his innocence, has demanded a review of his own. Neil Sayers was just a teenager when his friend Russell Crookes was repeatedly stabbed to death in a field near Hadlow College in Kent in May 1998. A year later Sayers was found guilty of the murder along with fellow student Graham Wallis, whose evidence sent Sayers to jail. Sayers has maintained his innocence ever since. His case was one of the cases reviewed by David Jessel for the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), but Heath’s conduct was unusual in this case. His opinion that there was extensive fire-damage was contradicted by his own post-mortem examination.

After hearing that Heath was recently let off by the General Medical Council (GMC) Sayers has had enough. He is the first prisoner protesting his innocence to instruct his solicitor Steven Bird to apply for legal aid to instruct a forensic pathologist to review the pathology-related issues, including those that Jessel did not consider, regardless of the conclusions of the CCRC.

Bird hopes to instruct a forensic pathologist with experience of Heath’s work in the new year to review Heath’s conduct and the impact it had on the conclusions of other experts, particularly fire-related aspects of the case. Sayers maintains that it happened days after the prosecution claim it did and there is considerable evidence that was not heard by the jury to support his opinion. For example, there were statements of witnesses who did not see the scorch pattern and associated debris on three different searches of the area days after the Crown say the fire occurred. These statements languished in the unused material. Some of those witnesses gave evidence, but were not asked about the lack of scorch-pattern their visits. It was noticed on May 24th 1998 – two days before the body was discovered in nearby woods, but these statements were not disclosed for Sayers’ trial.

Sayers was also let down by his then lawyers from the firm of Berry and Berry. Just a year earlier they had represented burglar Craig Kerwin when he was charged over the death of pensioner Jocelyn Strutt at her home in Southborough, Kent. Only Heath maintained that Strutt had been murdered by being hit with a heavy instrument that fractured her ribs – actually she suffered from brittle bones and her ribs probably broke when she fell.

Two other forensic pathologists (Nat Cary and Vesna Djurović) disagreed with Heath and proved that Strutt’s death was of natural causes – the result of a myocardial infarct that ruptured and her ribs broke in the fall that followed that event. Despite this Sayers’ lawyers failed to investigate Heath’s conduct in other cases, which would have provided important material on Heath’s credibility. Over a decade later, Sayers wants that review and Bird will try to ensure that he gets that right after the CCRC’s review of Heath – the only review of the shamed expert’s cases since his spectacular fall from grace – failed to discover this material and how it could have affected Sayers’ case.

The Fall of the Disgraced Pathologist

Meanwhile, the disgraced pathologist continues to perform post-mortem examinations for coroners despite being forced to resign from the Register of Home Office Pathologists after a disciplinary tribunal found that he had slipped below the required standard over the deaths of Jacqueline Tindsley and Mary Ann Moore. Tindsley was found dead in her bed after her partner Steven Puaca raised the alarm in March 2002. Heath insisted that Puaca had smothered her, resulting in Puaca’s conviction later that year. He was cleared on appeal in 2005 after five forensic pathologists disagreed with Heath’s conclusions.

Moore was found dead at the bottom of the stairs of the house she shared with her partner Kenneth Fraser in May 2001. Heath wrongly insisted that her injuries were consistent with murder. Fraser was acquitted the following year. The evidence, as Heath now accepts, was consistent with an accidental fall down the stairs. Ironically, another Home Office forensic pathologist, Dr Peter Acland, was suspended in April by the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) for making the opposite mistake.

Acland ruled the death of pensioner Mervin Fletcher at his home near Walsall in 2004 was due to head injuries caused by a fall induced by diabetes. He was wrong. Mustafa Abdullah was convicted of Fletcher’s murder in 2007 after using the victim’s cards to withdraw money from his account. The NPIA upheld nineteen of twenty-one charges against Dr Acland over his conduct in that case and suspended him from working for the police again. Heath no longer works as a forensic pathologist either, as he was forced to resign from the Register of Home Office Pathologists.

Tribunals

Three years ago a tribunal of the Advisory Board for Forensic Pathologists upheld twenty complaints against Heath over his handling of the deaths of Moore and Tindsley, so Heath resigned from the Register. It was not the end of his problems. Any case that he was involved in that the CCRC had been asked to consider – apart from ones that had resulted in successful appeals – was reviewed by their Commissioner Jessel, but the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith refused demands for a full investigation of all Heath’s cases. This summer the General Medical Council held a tribunal to decide whether Heath was fit to continue as a doctor due to his conduct over the deaths of Moore and Tindsley. It concluded that his remorse was genuine and there was no need for further punishment.

“During your career as a pathologist you have undertaken some 10,000 forensic pathology cases, of which none had been criticised prior to the two cases related to these proceedings, and none had been criticised since,” the panel said. This was quite simply not true.

Serious concerns about Heath’s competence were raised over a decade ago including the death of Stuart Lubbock in the entertainer, Michael Barrymore’s pool in March 2001. He took eleven years to become a Member of the Royal College of Pathologists. The reason – he repeatedly failed his exams. That emerged during cross examination in an inquest into another of Heath’s controversial cases (Ibrahima Sey).

Heath’s evidence has been found wanting in several cases both before and since the two cases that ended his career as a forensic pathologist as well.

Options

In October 2006 Jessel decided that only eight of fifty-four cases that had applied to them which involved Heath should be looked at again. It didn’t include Sayers’ case and three years on not one of those cases were referred back to the Court of Appeal on the basis of Heath’s evidence. Only Simon Hall’s conviction for the December 2001 murder of Joan Albert will be considered by the appeal court. Hall was convicted in 2003, but the CCRC referred it back on the basis of fibre evidence rather than Heath’s conduct.

It leaves the wrongfully convicted little option but to try to instruct forensic pathologists themselves to review Heath’s work as Sayers has done. None of Acland’s cases have been reviewed either. In the absence of adequate reviews others will probably follow Sayers’ example. Despite the best efforts of the authorities this story will run and run.

Steven Bird
(Leading solicitor and Treasurer of the Criminal Appeals Lawyers’ Association)

We highlighted issues that other media have ignored – issues that contribute to the miscarrying of justice and the continued devastation of the lives of all of the victims of these injustices.Yusef Abdullahi was deprived of assistance to rebuild his life despite a government scheme to assist victims of miscarriages of justice. It took 8 years to correct a scandalous error by a Home Office appointed consultant. All other media have ignored this scandal.

Richard Adams
(Father of racist murder victim Rolan and Trustee of The Fitted-In Project)

We offered the BBC unique access to the historic inquiry into what went wrong, having secured unprecedented co-operation from the police. The BBC didn’t bother to accompany us to Cardiff to do so in 2008, refusing to commit to a story it now says is important for them to cover.

Mags Gavan
(BAFTA award-winning documentary-maker)

Sekar was offered an insulting choice by the BBC to take part in the programme by the BBC, which they have not tried to impose on other journalists who have not achieved as much. Sekar agreed to be interviewed, subject to a complaint. The conditions would ensure that his criticisms of the BBC designed to assist the reporting of miscarriages of justice and related issues would never be broadcast.

The Fitted-In Project is concerned about the conditions that the BBC tried to impose and justify even now. Nobody else has been treated like this, especially after an unprecedented achievement. For the truth about the Lynette White Inquiry see Sekar’s books Fitted In: The Cardiff 3 and the Lynette White Inquiry and The Cardiff Five: Innocent Beyond Any Doubt, which was published recently by Waterside Press.

Satish Sekar pioneered the concept of vindication. The FIP is proud to launch Vindication – The Last Hope of the Innocent today (September 5th). It aims to ensure that the lessons of cases where victims of miscarriages of justice have been proven innocent by the identification or even conviction of real killers are fully learned. There have been six cases of vindication in Britain in the DNA age, but only one had an investigation of what went wrong – a process that was ultimately betrayed. Vindication – The Last Hope of the Innocent is long overdue.

“This is the story of one of the most notorious miscarriages of justice in British history told by Satish Sekar, whose unremitting efforts helped lead to the vindication of the Cardiff Five. They always were innocent, but their freedom was not enough. The memory of Lynette White and her family deserved justice too and that required the conviction of the real killer, Jeffrey Gafoor.This book shows how even a very difficult case can be solved if there is the will to investigate it thoroughly. It details how an awful miscarriage of justice was finally corrected by the conviction of the real killer. Satish’s work was pivotal to achieve this, and he is keen to continue the fight to ensure that the lessons of an extraordinary case are properly learned.”

Steven Bird (Solicitor and Treasurer of CALA)

“I wish Mr Sekar all the best in his work. His passion in ensuring that all available support is directed to those wrongly convicted and incarcerated is admirable.”

The Rt. Hon. Jack Straw (Former Home Secretary and Minister of Justice)

We are delighted to launch Proved Innocent – Vindication. We highlighted the inequity of a system that ignored some victims of miscarriages even though there is no doubt about their innocence. Eight years of refusing to allow the government to ignore an egregious injustice to be ignored resulted in a shameful error being corrected, but too late for Yusef Abdullahi. Despite his innocence being beyond question John Actie is still excluded from the scheme as is Colin Stagg, the original defendants in the Damilola Taylor Inquiry and the family of Phillip Skipper. Disgracefully, the family of victims of crime like Lynette White’s do not qualify either. Proved Innocent – Vindication highlights this affront to justice.

“As a victim of institutional racism I quickly saw the injustice of the case of the Cardiff Five and came to appreciate and admire the work that Satish Sekar put in on that case especially. He cared about all of the victims of that injustice and others too. Twenty years later he continues to fight for justice. His role in that case especially was pivotal – having worked not only to free the innocent, but to bring the guilty to justice. Even after making history in that respect he continues to fight on to bring the system that allowed so gross an injustice to book. There are forgotten or ignored victims of crime. My family has first-hand experience of that. I appreciated Satish’s often unseen efforts to help all of the victims. Sadly, the battle against injustice that brought us together remains to be won.”

Richard Adams (Father of Rolan Adams)

Just Tariffs – Protecting The Innocent is another of our most important projects. We are honoured to launch it here today. It highlights the incredible situation where the truly guilty get treated more leniently than the undeniably innocent for the same crime. Astonishingly this happened after the criminal justice system claimed to have taken into account the fact that such a killer had allowed innocent people to go to prison for his crime. The Law Commission and Ministry of Justice, among others refuse to accept that there is a problem.

“The case of the Cardiff Three, as it is best known, was a miscarriage of justice written in the starkest language. This was the story of three young men convicted of the 1988 murder of Lynette White in Cardiff who were freed on appeal in 1992. It is of particular significance because the real perpetrator of the murder, Jeffrey Gafoor, was finally traced through developments in DNA and, after attempting suicide, confessed to his crime, a crime made worse by the fact that he had allowed others to, as it were, serve his sentence for him. Such vindication, as Sekar explains in this book, is rare. More often, a shadow of suspicion lurks over the innocent man or woman, with unsubtle hints that some of them have ‘got away with murder.’

The Cardiff Three – sometimes called the Cardiff Five, because five men were arrested and charged although only three convicted – was and will remain one of the most crucial cases in the history of criminal justice in the United Kingdom and is worthy of detailed examination. It is not only for what went wrong at the time but for the many other issues it has thrown up in its wake.No-one is better suited to the task of explaining and unravelling the complexities of the story than Satish Sekar whose pioneering work has played a large part in our understanding of the murder and its ramifications. He has ploughed an often lonely furrow in pursuit of the story long after it had slipped from the front pages of the national press. Investigating such cases is a time-consuming and sometimes dangerous occupation.”

Duncan Campbell (Former Crime Correspondent of the Guardian)