We will be publising Bad Form – How Tariffs Protect the Guilty and Punish the Innocent early next year. It will reveal important new facts on how the tariff on Gafoor is an even bigger travesty than had been previously thought.

Here’s a taster: https://www.facebook.com/satish.sekar.3/videos/1374091852695493/

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].

Significance

Today, the real and sole murderer of 20-year-old Lynette White, becomes eligible to apply for parole. Jeffrey Gafoor admits that he alone is responsible. In the early hours of Saint Valentine’s Day 1988, Lynette was stabbed over fifty times. Her throat was slit. Still Gafoor continued his vicious attack. He stabbed her breasts and chest repeatedly – at least half of the offensive injuries were to that area of her body. The attack continued after she was dead or dying. The brutality obviously went far beyond what was required to kill her. It was cruel and in my view torture. Gafoor has never explained why Lynette suffered this horrific fate. And he has not explained why he stayed silent while five innocent men stood trial for a crime he admits he committed on his own.

The Cardiff Five ((Yusef Abdullahi, John and Ronnie Actie, Stephen Miller and Tony Paris) were charged with Lynette’s murder in December 1988. Almost two years later the Actie cousins were acquitted and the Cardiff Three were wrongfully convicted. It is now acknowledged to be one of Britain’s most notorious miscarriages of justice. It was quite obviously a sexually motivated homicide, even if that was not the label in use in the 1980s and ’90s.

Professor Dave Barclay conducted a review of the scientific evidence, which led t the vindication of the Cardiff Five and a measure of actual justice for the memory of Lynette White. He explains the significance of the crime being 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”, he said. “Thereʼs a slash across the face. Itʼs a sexually motivated homicide – full stop. [I]tʼs 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” [my emphasis].

So why the emphasis? Sexually motivated homicides are almost always committed by one man acting on his own, like Gafoor. Sometimes two vicious people combine and encourage each other to commit such crimes. Barclay and others cannot provide a single example in all the annals of crime where a murder like this was committed by five men, who made accomplices of two other sex workers, but let them live after committing such an evil crime. And all of this was allegedly done without leaving any trace, tying them to the scene or victim in total darkness. Sadly, Barclay has never given evidence about all this and more. So what would he have said if he had been given the chance? “Interestingly I give evidence more in Holland and places like that where they seem quite happy to have people give an overview”, he said. “I would have said whereʼs the evidence for any of that bullshit? I might even have said that in court”.

Evidence-led

Barclay demonstrated that the crime-scene evidence, forensic pathology, forensic psychology and blood distribution pattern was only consistent with one explanation. Lynette was murdered by one person acting on his own. That person, by his own admission and guilty plea – and evidence – was Jeffrey Charles Gafoor. For at least nine months the investigation followed the credible evidence – the crime-scene and forensic science wasn’t lying, but the original investigation took a diversion. It derailed the inquiry.

“[I]f you have two possibilities, you need very persuasive evidence to go for the least likely, so youʼve got a single male arguing with a prostitute over a deal and thatʼs what the scientist thought for nine months, or youʼve got this thing where Angela Psaila, [Mark] Grommek, at least and maybe somebody else and the five accused are all tearing round this room, sawing at peopleʼs necks and trying to cut their hands – stuff like this”, Barclay says.

“Angela Psailaʼs supposed to be asked to cut the neck or hands, I canʼt remember, or the wrist, so thatʼs so inherently improbable on every possible level: psychologically, practically and just they couldnʼt do it in that dark room without leaving footwear and finger-marks in blood and if you actually consider something I did after I totalled up the number of people that were supposed to have held the bloody knife”, he continues. “Thatʼs four people, so there are four people with blood on their hands and theyʼre going out without leaving finger-marks in blood or whatever, so I think that was a major thing. Occamʼs Razor is a thing that we use a lot in forensic science, ʻin all probability, the simplest explanation is the correct oneʼ, and you have to be really sure that the simplest explanation isnʼt correct and that was something that was not done either”.

The Cost of Silence

The methods that Barclay used in his review and subsequent work on this case were available in the 1980s and ’90s. There was no reason for this miscarriage of justice to be allowed to occur. Jeffrey Gafoor was the one person who knew for certain that not only were the Cardiff Five innocent, but that they were suffering a grave injustice for his crime. He chose to stay silent and let their lives be destroyed Ronnie Actie and Yusef Abdullahi both died before reaching fifty. John Actie, Stephen Miller and Tony Paris still endure the unjustifiable whispering campaigns in a case that disgraces justice. Meanwhile, the real killer, becomes eligible to apply for parole today after completing a tariff that was incorrectly applied and failed miserably to reflect the crimes Gafoor committed.

There is no excuse for the lives of the Cardiff Five and their families to have been wrecked. There is no excuse for Lynette’s family to have been denied justice for so long. While Gafoor is not responsible for justice miscarrying, his cowardly decision to refuse to take any responsibility for his crime when it mattered destroyed several lives. Do the courses and rehabilitative exercises that he experiences in prison to prepare him for parole bear this in mind? If not, why not? The real and sole killer received an inappropriately lenient tariff that further insults all the victims of this tawdry injustice – one that simply won’t go away until justice is allowed to reign once and for all.

Satish Sekar © Satish Sekar (June 1st 2011)

Discretion and Valour

Of the seven vindication cases in Britain four of them are no longer eligible for compensation or after-care and it is too late to help a fifth, who would have qualified.[2] The abolition of the Discretionary Scheme for compensation in 2006 denies anyone whose conviction is quashed too soon eligibility for compensation. The current government endorsed that shameful decision.[3]

“The discretionary compensation scheme was abolished on 19 April 2006 by the then Home Secretary and the coalition Government have no plans to reintroduce it,” Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice, Lord (Thomas) McNally replied to a written question from Lord (John) Laird earlier this year.[4]

“We will continue to consider applications for compensation under the statutory scheme, Section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which fully meets our international obligations.”

Scandalous

That means that some people who have been vindicated would be excluded if their cases were to happen now, but compensation is only part of the problem. There is an even bigger scandal over the provision of care or restoration.
A ludicrous error passed unnoticed nearly a decade ago. The Home Office recognised that victims of miscarriages of justice required and deserved assistance to rebuild their lives. It established a Working Group to consider the issue and establish such a scheme. It was given terms of reference and so was Peter Shore (not the former MP of that name), the Consultant that it hired to conduct a scoping study.
Shore failed to execute those terms of reference adequately and recommended a scheme that excluded the vast majority of victims of miscarriages of justice. Only Sean Hodgson is alive and eligible for the scheme operated by the MJSS, which begs the question, what use is it if it excludes the demonstrably innocent?[5]

To its shame and disgrace it failed to highlight the obvious injustice of its remit excluding among others Colin Stagg. There is plenty of shame and disgrace to go round over this and that includes mainstream media.

Plain Wrong

The term injustice is grossly inadequate to describe the suffering that Stagg and others like him went through. If he is not the victim of a miscarriage of a justice, the term has no meaning. Stagg is entitled to more than just compensation for what happened to him.
He did not ask for what happened to him to occur and is in no way responsible for the incompetence and unethical practices that ruined his life. He will always be identifiable as the suspect in the Rachel Nickell case regardless of his proven innocence.
At last he has now received apologies for what he went through, but the state has an obligation to restore him to the life that he should have had if that miscarriage of justice had not happened to him. That has not happened and the coalition government has no intention of ensuring that it does. In fact, its ministers donʼt even know its own policy.
“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,” McNally replied to Laird. “The MJSS provides help with issues such as healthcare, accommodation, finance and relationships. The MJSSʼ 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.”

Disgraceful

First of all, the MJSS does not provide help to those who have had their convictions quashed on appeal – it only provides that limited assistance to a tiny minority of such people. It shamefully reneged on a commitment to help Tony Paris and Yusef Abdullahi eight years ago to protect its funding, which included their wages.
The fact remains that there are several victims of miscarriages of justice who receive no help at all from the MJSS. If McNally is unaware of this, he ought to be ashamed of himself. The MJSS had the opportunity to help and improve the so-called service it provides eight years ago. It chose to sacrifice the interests of the undeniably innocent to protect its wages, claiming it was to protect its funding.
That disgraceful decision helped to cost lives. At least three vindicated people died without living to fifty without receiving any help whatsoever from the MJSS or the Ministry of Justice. Neither can ever make amends.

Exclusion Ordered

The original defendants in the Damilola Taylor case are at least still alive, but they receive no help from the MJSS. They were children when it happened; they had criminal records and were far from angels. So what!
They did not kill Taylor and they did not ask to be wrongly accused of a crime that shocked the nation. They have been compensated now after a long and hard battle and even that is resented. Why?
Where is the anger at the shoddy investigation that secured abysmal evidence from the child witness referred to as ʻBromleyʼ? Where is the anger at the utter incompetence of Sian Hedges that resulted in the wrongful release of the Preddie brothers (Ricky and Danny)?
The outrage at the size of the award given to two brothers (not the Preddies) is totally misplaced. They deserve compensation – at least that amount, but the size of the award given to Taylorʼs family is insulting. That should be addressed by increasing the award made to Taylorʼs family, not by attacking the award made to boys who stood trial when they should not have.

Motes and Specks

Meanwhile, we allow the undeniably innocent to be treated in a fashion that shames each and every one of us. That mainstream media ignores this scandal disgraces them too. That governments of both political hues refuse to act to end this outrage betrays every concept of justice.
They go to war in foreign fields to defend human rights, yet these hypocrites tolerate and ignore the human rights abuses that they allow to occur right here in Britain. By what right do they dare to lecture others when this is how they allow people they know to be innocent beyond doubt to be treated? It appears they need considerable assistance to remove the enormous mote from their own eyes, while tackling specks in the eyes of others.

Progress

The Fitted-In Project led the way in highlighting the treatment of these victims and in one of the cases we helped fill the void caused by the betrayal of the innocent with the assistance of a remarkable advocate and champion of restorative justice, Roger Backhouse QC. He led the delivery of after-care in practice to his former client, Yusef Abdullahi, without which, shorn of help and hope, the prospect of recovery was bleak.
While Backhouse and others provided the assistance required to an undoubtedly innocent man, the government and MJSS ignored that manʼs needs and those of the majority of victims of miscarriages of justice.[6]

Even now eight years later, the government has no plans to right the wrong that allowed this shameful injustice to occur. Instead it will consult with the very organisation that betrayed the innocent to protect its funding – shameful!

The Effects of Vindication

Instead of consulting people that played no part in catering for the needs of the vindicated, even at the cost of consigning them to early graves, we call for meaningful research that will boost our understanding of a shamefully neglected group of victims of miscarriages of justice.
The psychological effects of vindication remain a mystery. The vindicated are no more innocent now than they always were. The difference is that now they are believed by all but those who refuse to see. But what about the effects on vindication? Has the very thing they craved actually damaged them?
For many years they suffered whispering campaigns, including among so-called friends and developed paranoid reactions to their own communities, wondering who believed them and who didnʼt. Friendships and other relationships broke down under the strain of the certainty they now have against their knowledge that they should have been believed and supported to the hilt earlier.

Justice Betrayed

Feeling hurt – betrayed even – by people they trusted, but whose support was not strong enough, the vindicated may need extra support, or at least understanding. That requires research and it must include the psychological effects of tariff abuse.
Some vindicated people have seen the truly guilty receive more lenient tariffs than they did. How can this be justified and what effect does it have on the mental well-being of the vindicated? There is not so much a dearth of research on this – it is virtually non-existent.
Tariff Reform and after-care, especially in relation to the vindicated, are the flagship projects of The Fitted-In Project. They even involve sport as a means to aid their recovery.
We believe that research is essential on both topics and we are conducting it, but there are areas that we cannot cover as efficiently as we would like, so we call on the Clinical Forensic and Legal Medicine Section of the Royal Society of Medicine, other organisations and individuals to join us in facilitating understanding of the psychological effects of vindication in terms of after-care needs and also tariff abuse through research. We hope that its members will research these issues, or facilitate research projects with us on these issues.
It is through knowledge that their needs can be addressed, but first they need to be understood – that is a task to be led by professionals in the field through rigorous research. It is in our opinion an essential tenet of another integrated approach – one that integrates the vindicated back into society and the life they should have had.

[1] An indication of the importance of an integrated approach can be seen in Equality of Arms, at http://fittedin.org/fittedin/?p=690  for more on this case and others too.

[2]  Subsequently, a sixth who plainly was eligible has died, so it is too late for him too.

[3]  The current government has extended the attack on compensation to demand a standard that appears to demand that the wrongfully convicted must be exonerated – a standard that can prove impossible to meet unless the real perpetrator is brought to justice. Few independent observers believe that Barry George had anything to do with the murder of former gymnast and later television presenter, Jill Dando, but he has been denied compensation on the grounds of exoneration. This is grossly unfair as the criminal justice system rarely makes findings of innocence. A not guilty verdict includes both the innocent and also defendants who have not been proved guilty. The distinction is moot. Similarly convictions are quashed on appeal because they are unsafe. That includes both the innocent and appellants whose convictions were faulty. Again the distinction is moot as neither the trial nor appeal gives a finding of innocence, so how does a wrongfully accused prove that they have been exonerated and are therefore entitled to compensation?

[4] Please note that this was in 2011.

[5] That was correct when this presentation was given to a conference of medical practitioners, which included distinguished forensic pathologists.

[6]    See how we exposed this scandal in A Lack of Care at http://fittedin.org/fittedin/?p=709 and Who Cared? at http://fittedin.org/fittedin/?p=707

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.

Absurd

The victims of crime (or their family) have the right to give statements about the impact the crime has had upon them to the judge before he or she decides how long the guilty party must serve and rightly so. However, nowhere in the debate on victims’ rights is there any mention of the effects of the rights of victims of miscarriages of justice who have been vindicated, even though there should be no doubt that they have been victimised too.

Despite vindication – a miscarriage of justice that has been resolved by the conviction of the truly guilty – real perpetrators have been treated more leniently than the entirely innocent ones they allowed to be wrongly accused or convicted. That is shameful, especially as it was entirely preventable.

Horrific

The power to set tariffs (the minimum time that must be served of a life sentence) was taken away from the Home Secretary before the first case of vindication in a murder case in the DNA age in Britain, which occurred in July 2003 when Jeffrey Gafoor pleaded guilty to the murder of Lynette White. She was the victim of what was then (Valentine’s Day 1988) the most brutal murder of its type in Welsh history.

Her murder involved over fifty stab wounds, some of which were inflicted as she was dying or after death. Yusef Abdullahi, Steve Miller, Tony Paris and the cousins John and Ronnie Actie were charged with her murder and the Actie cousins were acquitted in November 1990, while the Cardiff Three were jailed for life. The wrongful convictions were quashed two years later, but not before the Cardiff Five had served a total of sixteen years actual prison time for a crime that they did not commit.

Unconscionable

Within a year of the publication of my book Fitted In: The Cardiff 3 and the Lynette White Inquiry in 1998, the case was re-opened and a combination of excellent police work and investigations by forensic scientists resulted in the arrest and conviction of Gafoor. He gave no comment interviews before admitting his guilt at his first appearance for pleas.

However the case against him was compelling as there was no answer to the DNA evidence, which could not have been planted for reasons that have been explained in The Cardiff Five: Innocent Beyond Any Doubt¹. Nevertheless, the law orders judges to credit defendants for ‘swift’ guilty pleas when setting tariffs. But did that apply in this case?

It was an horrific crime and Gafoor had allowed men he knew to be innocent to serve several years of actual imprisonment for his crime, but it was not entirely Mr Justice Royce’s fault that the tariff seemed unduly lenient. However, it remains obscene that there is a real possibility that the truly guilty Gafoor could serve less time in prison for a crime that he committed than the innocent men that he allowed to suffer wrongful imprisonment for the same crime. There can be no excuse for that.

Remorseless

Gafoor can show ‘genuine’ remorse for his crime, because he has reason to be sorry for murdering White, but the Cardiff Three could not without lying about their guilt – a lie that would have prevented her murder from ever being correctly resolved. Given the nature of the crime that they were convicted of they would have been deemed to be ‘in denial of murder’ if they failed to admit their guilt as well.

They would also have been required to take courses to address their offending behaviour, even though they were actually innocent. Gafoor can easily do all of this and progress through the system because he is guilty. Ironically, the system caters for the needs of the guilty and rewards them, but punishes the innocent.

The Cardiff Three could have been crushed by their experience of wrongful imprisonment, or worse still committed suicide in prison, while Gafoor savoured his ill-deserved freedom – none of which was taken into account when setting the tariff.

The criminal justice system claims to put victims at its centre of the system, so why have the Cardiff Five been denied the status they deserve as victims of Gafoor, the criminal justice system and perjury too?

Impact

The law allows the families of victims the right to give victim statements about how the murder of their loved one has affected them to judges before the tariff – the minimum that must be served before an offender is eligible to apply for release on parole – is set. This gives victims a say, but what about other victims?

Lynette White’s family did so before Mr Justice Royce imposed the tariff on Jeffrey Gafoor. Royce referred to them in his explanation of the tariff and described them as powerful, but Lynetteʼs family were not the only victims of Jeffrey Gafoorʼs hideous crimes. Despite being adversely affected by Gafoorʼs crimes for the rest of their lives the criminal justice system and criminal actions during the investigation, the Cardiff Five (Yusef Abullahi, John and Ronnie Actie, Stephen Miller and Tony Paris) were given no input at all.

Surely they deserved that small courtesy that could have assisted in understanding the full effect of Gafoor’s crimes, especially as it is not even a criminal offence to knowingly allow innocent people to suffer wrongful imprisonment for his crime, but shouldn’t it be?

Support?

More than five years after they were proved innocent beyond any doubt they will probably never recover from their ordeal. Depriving them of the opportunity to detail how they too were victimised by Gafoor’s actions adds to it by denying the fact that they suffered greatly at his hands too.

Allowing them to give victim statements demonstrates in practice that they have indeed been victimised by his actions and shows that the criminal justice system takes its responsibilities seriously. It is an area that has shamefully neglected until now. There have been other vindication cases since the Cardiff Five made history and there will be more to come.

In this case it has already been proved that they were the victims of crime as well, as perjured testimony contributed to their wrongful convictions, but where is the support for them? As victims of crime are they not entitled to the assistance provided to others by organisations such as Victim Support? And if not, why not?

To date they have never received any and were not referred to Victim Support by the police. Nor did Victim Support make any effort to contact them despite the high profile nature of this case. They are clearly victims as well and should be treated as such, so the criminal justice system should acknowledge this and allow the victims of such miscarriages of justice the right to be heard and receive whatever.

Vindication

The law can be amended easily to allow vindicated victims like the Cardiff Five to give victim statements as well. It is surely not too much to ask that they be given the same courtesy that is afforded to the family of the victim of the murder. Other miscarriages of justice have been resolved in this manner now.

However, tariffs or sentences have been imposed without acknowledging the status of those who suffered the miscarriage of justice as victims deserving the right to voice their concerns. It was already too late for Stefan Kiszko who died without seeing Ronald Castree convicted of the murder of Lesley Molseed, but not for others.

Colin Stagg and the original defendants in the Damilola Taylor Inquiry were and alive when Robert Napper was brought to account for the killing of Rachel Nickell and the four boys who originally stood trial for the murder of Damilola Taylor when the Preddie brothers (Ricky and Danny) were finally brought to justice. There will be others.

The Right to be Heard

It is difficult to imagine a more disgraceful way to treat all of the victims of such cases and it is inevitable that there will be others that are resolved in this manner in the future. Without all the victims of these cases being given a voice further injustice will occur. The families of the victims of homicides have their say when tariffs are considered, but the victims of these miscarriages of justice are excluded by the system that has wronged them.

Why should the victims of such miscarriages of justice be denied the right to make victim statements? If victims are to be truly put at the heart of the criminal justice system then all the victims of cases such as this must be given a voice. It cannot roll back the years or spare them the ordeal that they have suffered, but acknowledging that they too are victims would be a start – albeit a small step, but long overdue.

Ludicrous

When sentencing the real murderer of Lynette White to life imprisonment in July 2003, Mr Justice (Sir John) Royce told Jeffrey Gafoor: “You allowed innocent men to go to prison for a crime that you knew you had committed.”

In October 2005 Royce gave his reasons for imposing the thirteen year tariff – the minimum that Gafoor must serve before he becomes eligible for release on parole – that included the four months that he served on remand before pleading guilty – although he stressed that it didn’t mean that Gafoor would be released that soon.

Nevertheless it was significantly less than the tariffs imposed on two of the entirely innocent Cardiff Three which were between fourteen and eighteen years.

Constraints

Royce believed that he was only allowed to add one third of his starting point (fifteen years) for aggravating circumstances. In this case they were the brutality of the crime and the fact that he had allowed innocent people to be convicted for his crime.

Royce added four years and six months for that. That is bizarre. Despite it being a particularly brutal crime and Gafoor allowing innocent men to suffer, Royce did not impose the maximum for aggravating circumstances. Why not?

He then gave Gafoor credit for an early guilty plea (he has to allow one sixth for that) and also for assisting the police with their current investigation into what went wrong. He deducted three years and six months for mitigation and because Gafoor was caught in 2003 Royce had to apply the law as it was then, which he thought meant that he had to add the amount to twelve years – the standard tariff at that time¹.

Consequently, Gafoor – the real murderer – received a significantly lower tariff than the innocent people he allowed to go to jail. The Cardiff Five served a total of sixteen years hard time in prison. There is a real possibility that the real murderer will serve less time in prison than the innocent men his silence allowed to be convicted. He becomes eligible to apply for parole in 2016.

Wrong

This is obscene and it sends out a message to killers that it is far better for them to allow the innocent to be convicted and do nothing than take responsibility for their crime. Previously, tariffs were determined by the Home Secretary, but after a challenge to the European Court of Human Rights, the court in Strasbourg ruled that the law had to be changed.

Ironically, a decision that gave the powers to set tariffs to judges deprived them of the very discretion they required to deliver justice based on the particular facts of individual cases. Mr Justice Royce found his hands firmly tied when he came to impose the tariff on Gafoor, or believed that they were. The law resulted in serious aggravating circumstances only outweighing comparatively trivial mitigating circumstances by just a year.

Favour

Meanwhile, the system is weighted further in Gafoor’s favour, as he can express remorse, attend the relevant courses and even use the fact that he assisted the inquiry into what went wrong in the original inquiry to support his parole application.

He can point to the fact that in almost eleven years before his arrest on suspicion of the murder of Lynette White he had not come to the attention of police. His only conviction was an assault on a colleague at work in 1992, which resulted in a non-custodial sentence.

An Insult

If Jeffrey Gafoor serves less time in prison than the innocent men he left to rot for his crime, it will be an insult to every concept of justice. It may be too late for the Cardiff Five, but there will be other cases of vindication where the same issues arise.

It is not too late to ensure that judges have the unfettered discretion to set appropriate tariffs in such cases that fit the individual circumstances of those cases. Perhaps it can’t help the Cardiff Five, but justice must surely reflect society’s disgust at criminals who not only commit terrible crimes but allow innocent people to pay the price of their crimes as well.

Anything less disgraces the very name of justice.

Institutional Racism

Over 20 months before black aspiring architect Stephen Lawrence was murdered, the Metropolitan Police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had the opportunity to save his life, but institutional racism prevented it. 15-year-old Rolan Adams was brutally murdered on February 21^st 1991. His then 14-year-old brother Nathan escaped the killers. By the time he returned – it was before everyone carried mobile phones – Rolan was dead. His carotid artery had been cut.

A group of 15 racist thugs who had been involved in racist attacks before and since were responsible. They hurled ugly racist abuse at the two boys who had just been waiting for a bus and attacked them. Mark Thornburrow was the only one of them convicted of murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a recommendation that he serve a minimum of 10 years in jail. Despite that over 20 years after losing his son Rolan’s father, Richard, still feels betrayed.

Connived

“They connived to remove the racist element from the murder,” an angry Richard Adams said at the time. “We knew that we would not get justice when they started saying that territorialism rather than racism was the main motivation for the murder”.

Both police and CPS saw it as a triumph as Mark Thornburrow was jailed for life for the murder of 15-year-old Rolan Adams, but 15 racist youths attacked Rolan and his then 14-year-old brother Nathan, who survived the attack. Only 7 of the gang who had racially abused and attacked other black youths on the Thamesmead estate, were charged and that was reduced to 4, and only 3 eventually got 120 hours community service for violent disorder.

Fostering a Knife Culture

“The others are as guilty as Thornburrow”, Mr Adams told me. “My sons could not defend themselves from all of them. They should have been charged with murder by joint enterprise. If the police and CPS had done that my son’s murder might have been the last in the Borough of Greenwich instead of the first of three racist murders”.

Justice has finally taken its course in the notorious case of the murder of Stephen Lawrence, but the ordeal of the Richard and Nathan Adams and their family continues. It could and should have prevented the murders of Rohit Duggal and later Stephen Lawrence and many other knife-crimes too.

Cowardly

Mr Adams is dissatisfied with Thornburrow’s tariff. “10 years for the cowardly murder of my son is not enough,” said Mr Adams. “The judge acknowledged that it was racist and he carried and used a knife. What kind of deterrence is that? If Thornburrow had received the sentence he deserved, the knife-carrying culture that followed could have been stopped in its tracks. He should have been charged with the attempted murder of Nathan as well, which should have increased the tariff. The Lord Chief Justice could have increased his tariff and so could the Home Secretary at that time. Why didn’t they”?

Victimsʼ Rights

Their lives were torn apart by Rolan’s murder  a crime that should have been the pivotal moment in race relations in Britain. Mr Adams believes that the actions of the criminal justice system not only made their ordeal worse, but left other families vulnerable too.

“I have no doubt that institutional racism played a major part not just in the failure to give us justice, but encouraging the racists”, Mr Adams said. “We wanted victim’s rights back then, but we were left to fend for ourselves. The thugs hurled racist abuse at my sons before attacking them because they were black. They did nothing wrong. If the police and CPS had done their jobs properly, Rolan’s murder would have been seen as the racist crime it was and the families of Rohit Duggal and Stephen Lawrence would not have faced that same racism by a system that should have known better”.

Failed Miserably

Witnesses, including Nathan, testified that it was a racist attack and the judge was satisfied that they were right. “The CPS should not have relied on the police alone”, said Mr Adams. “The police had a racist view that this was not a racist murder. They were wrong and they made a terrible ordeal for us even worse. The CPS should have relied on the witnesses. They were there and they knew it was racist. When the judge agreed with us that the thugs who attacked my sons were racist, the police and CPS should have agreed to an independent judicial inquiry to find out why we were failed so miserably. That could have prevented other tragedies”.

Richard and Nathan and their family suffered a terrible ordeal. Nathan turned his back on a promising career in football. He went off the rails as a result of that terrible February night. He has got back on track without any help from the authorities.

“The police and CPS should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves”, said Mr Adams. “Not only did they fail us miserably in the prosecution, but they gave us no support either. Nathan especially really needed help. It took us many years to recover and ensure that Rolan has the fitting legacy he deserves.”

Legacy

They have established the Rolan Adams Legacy Trust to make sure that this important story in Britain’s race relations is never forgotten. They also want justice for both Rolan and Nathan. “Thornburrow got a minimum recommendation of 10 years, but he eventually served only 13”, said Mr Adams. “Why? It was a cowardly racist murder and he claimed he acted in self-defence. 15 against 2 and he had a knife as well and he is allowed to get out too soon”. His thoughts on that are understandably unprintable.

He has no doubt that institutional racism robbed his family of justice and that if the CPS had prosecuted the others through joint enterprise it would have sent a message to others not to encourage racist attacks and even restrain knife-wielding thugs like Thornburrow. He thinks that had those lessons been learned early enough, Rohit Duggal and Stephen Lawrence among others might still be alive. But he wants more – a legacy for Rolan and the justice he and his family were denied 20 years ago.

“There have been fantastic advances in forensic science in the last 20 years”, said Mr Adams. “The police and CPS have a chance to redeem themselves by investigating Rolan’s murder and the attempted murder of Nathan properly through modern investigative methods and forensic science. Both Rolan and Nathan are entitled to justice even if it is 20 years later than it should have been”.

Despicable

John Pope was a suspect originally in the murder of Karen Skipper, which occurred in Cardiff in March 1996. He was eliminated, incorrectly as it turned out. Sadly the late Phillip Skipper stood trial for a crime that he did not commit the following year. An inquiry by West Midlands Police concluded that the decision to prosecute Skipper was justified. It certainly was not. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) should not have allowed it to come to trial.

The scientific evidence was not allowed to speak as it could and should have. Blood-staining in an intimate area of the victim’s clothing established his innocence through forensic science techniques that were available at the time. DNA testing established that it was not his blood, nor that of his estranged wife Karen. It was therefore obvious that the killer had shed his blood.

But desperate times called for desperate measures. A ludicrous explanation was advanced – one that hinged on Mrs Skipper never having washed resold jeans that she bought at a market for several weeks. Phillip Skipper was rightly acquitted, but the damage had been done, despite the absence of both smoke and fire.

Double and Treble Jeopardy

Nevertheless, his memory – he died of cancer aged just 48 – was put on trial again three times. It was Pope’s DNA and his explanation of the transfer of blood stretched credibility. Was it possible? Yes. Was it likely? No. Pope never took responsibility. That’s his right, but blaming an innocent man who could not defend himself three times was reprehensible to put it mildly. And after being found guilty again his QC Mark Evans put forward mitigation.

Shamefully, the tariff was exactly the same as before, but there was no recognition from the court of the ordeal of Phillip Skipper and his family. Why not? After Jeffrey Gafoor was brought to justice for the murder of Lynette White, real murderers allowing the innocent to suffer for their crime was supposed to be taken into account. In fact, it has never happened – an appalling message to give to killers as it tells them that there are no consequences for allowing the innocent to go to jail for their crimes.

A Total Disgrace

The Fitted-In Journal covered Pope’s retrial last year – many other mainstream media did not and at least some of those that did simply didn’t get it. Another miscarriage of justice was unfolding before our eyes. A young girl had been forced to hear about her deceased father being wrongly accused of murder three times while barely in her teens.

Pope’s defence could hurl any mud, however nonsensical, with no controls, while the Crown could not. There was no representation for Phillip Skipper’s estate, or his family, let alone redress. Why not? There was clear and unequivocal scientific evidence that he was innocent, yet this was never put before the jury. Why not?

There was outrage aplenty for Bob Dowler when convicted serial killer Levi Bellfield tried to point a finger at him and rightly so, but where is the outrage for Phillip Skipper, who had no opportunity to even defend himself? And where is the outrage for his daughter?

Obligations

It was apparently a matter of pride for South Wales Police to put right what they got wrong in the Lynette White Inquiry. They failed to do so, but in the Karen Skipper Inquiry, they refused to even try.

Why were they allowed to get away with that? Where was the outrage for Karen Skipper and her family? Where was the outrage for Phillip Skipper and his family? And where is society’s outrage? Why do we tolerate millions of pounds of our resources being thrown away without consequences or even accountability?

Where is the investigation of the Karen Skipper Inquiry to establish how the wrong man originally stood trial and if any errors occurred that could have prevented repetition? In 2009 after Pope’s original conviction we asked South Wales Police to investigate what went wrong. They refused. The result was a colossal waste of public resources, time and unnecessary suffering imposed on a young girl who deserved far better.

Two trials and an appeal later, there is no excuse for failing to investigate this and other vindication cases thoroughly, but there is one vital lesson to emerge from the Lynette White Inquiry Police Corruption Trial. South Wales Police and the criminal justice system cannot be trusted to put right what they got wrong.