Labels

Being Jordan Cunliffeʼs mum for the last seven and a half years hasnʼt been easy. Not just because I have had to become accustomed to my new title, ʻMother of a Murdererʼ, but because I have had to explain over and over again that my son was proven not to have murdered anyone during the trial, so calling him a murderer is wrong.

Someone who has not murdered anyone should not be called a murderer, yet the English language has yet to create a name for a person like my son. He was there, but he was a child and a vulnerable one too. Legal people try to fool both themselves and the public with the words ʻsecondary party to murder.

Yet that still doesnʼt fit either because by definition murder must be with intent – otherwise itʼs not murder. So someone who doesnʼt lay a finger on the victim, who plays no part by plan or by purpose and has no knowledge of the intentions of the person that does, is not a murderer.

So why is my son labelled a convicted murderer? Why is this allowed not only via words that have vilified and tormented both him and our entire family for over 7 years, but via the harshest punishment that can be inflicted upon a person in this country. And that punishment is a life sentence in prison.

Vulnerable Child

My boy Jordan was just 15 years-old when he was charged with the shocking murder of Garry Newlove. Jordan was blind and needed transplant surgery in both eyes. Rather than go over the details and evidence of the case Iʼm just going to say that after 3 terrifying days of questioning in the police station of an extremely vulnerable child and on hearing the statements of others during this process, I firmly grasped what had happened on Station Road that night.

Iʼm no detective, but Iʼm no fool either. I worked out who it was that inflicted that one fatal blow. It was one blow at that stage and about working out exactly who had delivered it. It was only minutes after Jordan was charged with murder that I had my theory confirmed by the mother of the boy who had delivered that blow. If I could work this out, why couldnʼt the police, CPS and other lawyers.

Jordan was there in the crowd when Newlove was attacked, but he took no part in it. He was a child – a blind one. What did they think he could do? He obviously could not have taken part in the attack itself. But being there left him vulnerable to a murder charge, through the controversial principle of Joint Enterprise, but that implies that he shared the intent of the teenagers who attacked Newlove. Where was the proof of Jordanʼs intent?

The Search for the Truth

The charge had been made I accepted this as part of the search for the truth – well I accepted it then, not knowing what I know now. I knew the next few months were going to be tough – even painful – but my trust in British justice was such that I resigned myself to this anguish.

I did this knowing another family had lost a loved one and that the evidence had to be laid out before them in a trial process. We felt we had a duty to accept this process – it was only fair. Itʼs what we would have expected. We recognised that our pain was nothing in comparison to theirs.

To sacrifice six months on remand and the trauma of a trial was nothing like that of three young girls who had lost their dad. We knew that they were victims of this horrible incident and that by the end of all of this we could return to our comfortable lives and continue as the loving family we had always been. It wouldnʼt be that simple for the Newlove family – that was obvious.

It was also clear to us that after our small sacrifice, which was in the name of justice, this would eventually become a distant memory – one my family would always feel sympathy towards but not a memory that would infiltrate our lives with grief on a daily basis. The Newloves didnʼt and wouldnʼt have that luxury.

Naïvety Gives Way

How wrong we all were. Not a day has gone by without grieving for the loss of my son and the teenage years I have missed spending with him. Not a day has gone by not having to discuss the case in detail, chasing lawyers: researching the law, searching for answers, explaining my love for my child and grieving for the future life both he and we will never have. All because of the actions of someone else combined with the actions of a flawed and uncaring justice system.

The first few years were the worst because when the law lies, the media reports those lies, quashing any voice I had left. After the endless nights screaming myself to sleep and endless days talking my child out of taking his own life, the endless grind started to take its toll. When you have asked every question imaginable: when you have asked why has this happened and no one has an answer, what is left?

When even those in the so called ʻknowʼ find it impossible to understand, let alone explain it to you, you eventually have to stop tearing your hair out. You stop punching yourself in the face. You either shut up and put up with the dreadful hand youʼve been dealt, or you look for a way forward on your own. There is no doubt about it you are on your own as well.

You are not a victim; youʼre scum. You somehow deserve this nightmare. Your child, whom you know better than anyone else, whom you nurtured from the cradle isnʼt human to others, As far as they, the wider public are concerned, heʼs a dog that should be destroyed.

When the press give their readers a stick and tell them to beat you with it, that is exactly what they do. People who love you tell you to go to the papers, go get the truth out there. If only it was that simple. It took over 18 months before the first journalist I built a relationship with was able to establish the truth that my son was wholly innocent.

It took a lot less time for the Crown to find him guilty, but the seeking of the truth was never on their radar not for the victimʼs family, and certainly not for us. Not even for the public. The CPS had to ensure that only cases where they have enough evidence to prove guilt and that prosecuting was in the public interest reach trial. It was plainly in the public interest, but sufficient evidence? Was the prosecution of my son justified by the evidence?

What is the evidence that Jordan shared a Joint Enterprise with Newloveʼs attackers? Did he plan the attack with them? Did he take part in it? Did he shout encouragement? If any of the above, what is the evidence that proves it? Did the CPS apply its own Code for Crown Prosecutors¹? I recently became aware of the importance of this in a Joint Enterprise case – one that is hardly ever mentioned as such – the Cardiff Five.

The evidential criteria was published then, which meant their supporters and advocates could do what we canʼt. They could compare the criteria with the evidence against them. The failures of the CPS in that case were astonishing and it isnʼt the only one. If only we could do the same. The CPS must believe that there was enough to prosecute my son, so what are they afraid of? Publish the criteria and let the public see for themselves whether they are following their own guidelines.

Gagging the Evidence

To be told by someone with no agenda or emotional attachment towards you that they had searched to find the evidence to prove his guilt and found none, was like a breath of fresh air to a drowning man. However, they couldnʼt report the truth because a gagging order had been placed preventing my sonʼs severe disability ever being broadcast.

We have to ask why? What possible justification could there be for preventing the public from knowing that Jordan suffered from severe disabilities? Without this vital piece of the jigsaw there was no real story. Just as they had denied this vital piece of information to be heard at the trial, yet again my boyʼs innocence was being silenced. Unfair does not begin to cover the injustice here. This has happened to Jordan and to us. How many others are struggling to cope with stolen pieces of the jig-saw?

Frustratingly, judges at an appeal hearing, not only upheld this injustice, they vented their anger towards my boy who dared to use his legal right to appeal his conviction. Sadly thereʼs nothing new in this. It happened to the Birmingham Six, Bridgewater Four among others too. Ninety years ago, the opinion of one man – almost certainly wrong – trumped those of eight experts. The jury took less than half an hour – let me repeat that. The jury took less than half an hour to dismiss the evidence of eight medical experts in favour of just one. The judge had even described the prosecution expert as ʻThe greatest living pathologistʼ. The Court of Appeal refused to allow a panel of experts to consider that evidence. They dismissed the appeal and Norman Thorne was hanged. Thorne never had a fair trial or appeal. Fast forward 90 years. What has changed?

Jordan brought forward grounds for appeal. He did so with evidence that in normal circumstances should have seen him gain an opportunity to appeal. These men talked of public outrage and opinion, but failed to recognise the publicʼs opinion was not only based upon the lies they had been told, but upon the truth they had been denied. I ask again, what has changed since Norman Thorne became a ʻMartyr to Spilsburyismʼ?

Common

Years went by. I chipped away like a woman possessed. I talked of nothing but joint enterprise to anyone who would listen, and inch by inch the cracks have started to appear. I can truly say that if it were not for the horror of the conviction my son received, the British public still would not have heard of the phrase joint enterprise.

4.4million people heard that phrase over and over all at the same time, one evening last summer when they tuned into BBC1 to watch Jimmy McGovernʼs joint enterprise film, Common – a film inspired by sonʼs ordeal.

I have had tears, I have had tantrums. Iʼve even tried to will myself to death. When pain and frustration runs so deep life becomes impossible. Being forced to live with injustice does irreparable damage but at the same time it creates an incredible quest for justice and the desire to never stop until you have proven all you need to prove.

Justice Not Just Us

I no longer care what people think about me as I used to, if people are too foolish to listen to the vital message about joint enterprise and have no concern for themselves or their children, Iʼm not too tired to repeat myself. Joint Enterprise may have a place in our law, but if it does, let it be just. Let the CPS prove that the accused shared a joint enterprise with each other. Let them prove with credible evidence that the defendants plotted and planned with each other, or participated in an attack that led to murder. Garry Newloveʼs widow Helen is now the Victimʼs Commissioner and a Baroness. She says that just being in the crowd when her husband was attacked should be enough for a murder conviction. That devalues their ordeal too. We have no problem with those responsible for Garry Newloveʼs death being convicted, but if being there is enough, is anyone safe? We also find it odd that victimsʼ rights advocates are so silent on some cases – ones where you would think the supporters of joint enterprise would be demanding action. Instead itʼs left to those families, their supporters and – last but hopefully not least, us!

Until it happened to my son, I hadnʼt given much thought – any – to joint enterprise. I had heard about and been appalled by the murder of Stephen Lawrence. Like many others I didnʼt know much about the sad events that occurred nearby two years earlier that cost a boy my sonʼs age his life and left his brother scarred by those events.

Unlike my sonʼs case a gang participated in the attack on Rolan and Nathan Adams. There was evidence that members of a racist gang took part in that attack. Their actions distracted Rolan. Mark Thornburrow stabbed him fatally. How could Rolan know if others who attacked him were armed too? Did their attack distract his attention and prevent him from fending off the fatal attack? Members of that gang shared a joint enterprise with Thornburrow – it was at least arguable. But the gang members were either not charged, or charged with comparatively minor offences like violent disorder. They got no sentence at all or community service orders and they were involved. Over a quarter of a century later the CPS refuses to use joint enterprise in a case where it could and should have been used, but sees nothing wrong with using it against disabled child who did not take part in the attack. Where is the justice in that?

On one of the days I spent with Jimmy McGovern, he told me that a lie is half way around the world before the truth has even put its boots on. I can relate to that wholeheartedly. Iʼve finally put my boots on.

The prosecution team in the Lynette White murder trial included two Queens Counsels, led by David Elfer. The other became Mr Justice Roderick Evans. Elfer failed to understand Stephen Miller’s vulnerability and used a confession that was false, ludicrous and unlawfully obtained. He relied on obviously unreliable witnesses and presented a case to the jury that should never have come to trial.

Both he and the CPS must have known that the statements of one of Yusef Abdullahiʼs alibi witnesses supported his claims that he had been working on a ship in Barry Docks on the night of the murder. Despite that knowledge they not only bluffed the defence into not calling vital alibi witness Brynley Samuel, but gave the jury the false impression that Samuel didnʼt help Abdullahi.

Judicial Responsibilities

The trial judges bear responsibility too. The late Sir David McNeill plainly had a standard on oppression that Lord Taylor strongly disagreed with – one that was open to shocking abuse. It set a standard that would have allowed police to find the weakest person and bully them into accepting what they wanted to hear. Even now some believe that there was nothing wrong with the way that Miler was questioned.

Taylor, sitting with a then Mr Justice (Sir John) Laws and Mr Justice (Sir Oliver) Popplewell, were ‘horrified’ by the methods that McNeill found admissible, but they too failed to resolve a vital issue. McNeill was wrong in law and that fact should have been acknowledged by the appeal judges. Had McNeill ruled on the confession as he should have done, the miscarriage of justice would probably not have occurred and the terrible error of not arguing that Miller had been bullied would likely not have happened in the second trial.

Severance

Even the next trial judge Mr Justice (Sir John) Leonard cannot escape censure. A few well-chosen words from judge to jury that Leonard thought would dispel the prejudice from refusing to sever Miller’s trial from that of his co-defendants who did not confess – a recurring theme in miscarriage of justice cases – were ignored by the jury. The same thing had happened in another South Wales case where Leonard was the trial judge less than five years earlier.

That too was later recognised as an awful miscarriage of justice – the Darvell brothers (Paul and Wayne). The murder of Sandra Phillips remains unsolved. Leonard should have been criticised by the Court of Appeal judges for his failure to sever these trials – in practice the only way to ensure that the trials of defendants who did not confess were not prejudiced by the admissions of those who did.

It must now be clear – it should have been at the time – that juries rely on confessions. They cannot believe that people confess to crimes they did not commit, especially for such a meagre reward as an end to the interrogations when that means sacrificing their long term interests and freedom, possibly for a very long time, but they do.

A Wretched History

The history of false confessions contributing to wrongful convictions is a long and wretched one that has continued to occur despite PACE. Understanding of the causes of these confessions and extent of vulnerabilities has undoubtedly improved, but defence lawyers cannot be immune from this process.

Millerʼs original lawyers had no idea or understanding of the extent of his vulnerabilities and need for robust support. The result was an egregious and entirely preventable miscarriage of justice, not just against Miller, but his co-accused too.

Inadmissible

The jury should have been protected from relying on inadmissible evidence like that, but it must be obvious that juries tend to believe confessions, however absurd, in these cases, especially without receiving the proper context of why innocent people confess to crimes they did not commit and on occasion implicate other innocent people. They too were not criticised by the appeal judges.

Those judges couldn’t wait to quash the convictions of the Cardiff Three, but in their rush to do so they failed to allow grounds to be developed that years later were at the heart of the recently failed trial of the former police officers and witnesses. Had those grounds been developed in 1992 as they should have been, safeguards that could have helped to prevent other miscarriages of justice would have been established.

Damage Limitation

The Court of Appeal refused to apologise and despite its strengths on the one area it considered in depth, the judgement that freed the Cardiff Three left them vulnerable to an unjustified and unjustifiable whispering campaign. That disgraces the criminal justice system.

It was in fact little more than a damage limitation exercise. However the attempt to force the lid shut on a can of worms, the like of which South Wales had never seen before, ultimately failed. The final reckoning and damage to both the force and criminal justice system proved far worse than if they had grasped the nettle two decades ago. There is a lesson in that.

The Cardiff Five are no more innocent now than they were when wrongly arrested and charged. They should never have gone through the ordeal that the state gave them no option but to endure and nor should Lynetteʼs family or indeed the people of South Wales. It should not have required finding the real killer to prove innocence and facilitate an investigation into what went wrong.

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?

Inconvenient Evidence

The case of the Catford Three (Colin Lattimore, Ronald Leighton and Ahmet Salih) is now acknowledged as of Britain’s pivotal miscarriages of justice – one that changed the criminal justice system. Their alibis – Lattimoreʼs was particularly strong – were treated as little more than an inconvenience to be overcome and this appears to explain the forensic pathologist Professor James Cameronʼs sudden change of opinion regarding the time of death.

Outrageously, Cameron waited until the trial was under-way to inform the defence during his evidence that he had changed his mind. Lattimoreʼs lawyers had prepared their defence of alibi on what they had been informed was the time of death that the police and prosecution were relying on. It was all they could do.

Ambush

They had no time to prepare for this change in the prosecution case or even get expert opinion to counter it. They were ambushed by Cameronʼs shifting of the goalposts at trial. It was outrageous and the judge should not have allowed it and nor should the Court of Appeal. Twenty years later the Court of Appeal famously said that it does not allow convictions secured by ambush in the shameful case of Judith Ward.

In its way this was worse as it was not even concealed – it was brazen. The court actually witnessed the ambush in progress and not only tolerated it, but rewarded it with the prize the prosecution sought. After an 18 day trial in November 1972 Lattimore was convicted of manslaughter due to diminished responsibility and Leighton of murder – Salih of the offences he confessed to. Lattimore and Leighton were convicted of the other offences as well.

Outrageous

In November 1972 the three youngsters began their sentences. There was no indication that this would become one of the most important and notorious miscarriages of justice in British history – one that would command two major enquiries and usher in pivotal changes in the law, but there should have been. Cameronʼs shifting of the goalposts on the time of death was outrageous. It destroyed the alibi work the defence had conducted.

It was obvious that Cameron had not changed his mind by such a considerable amount of time when he gave evidence, so when had he come to that conclusion and why? There was another obvious problem with the previous time of death – the fire evidence. If the original time of death was correct it meant that the murderers had stayed around for almost three hours and then set the fire. Why would anyone do that?

Fair Trial?

Changing the time of death neatly avoided that question and avoided the obvious conclusion – the fire had nothing to do with the murder of Maxwell Confait whatsoever. Cameronʼs conduct had rendered a fair trial impossible. The trial should have been stopped immediately and the issue resolved before any retrial occurred. It did not. The fact that this was allowed to happen to children – treated as adults by the law – makes it even more unconscionable.

The Judgeʼs Rules were amended on the treatment of child suspects and on the vulnerable – then termed ʻeducationally sub-normalʼ, but nothing was done about Cameron’s late change of opinion. The Police And Criminal Evidence Act was a direct response to this case and the Prosecution of Offences Act facilitated the establishing of the Crown Prosecution Service as a result of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedures as well.

Shamefully, nothing was done to prevent expert prosecution witnesses ambushing children or even adults at trial. Lord Justice James, delivered the decision of the Court of Appeal in July 1973. It proved to be yet another wretched judgement betraying the arrogance and complacency of a system that believed itself infallible.

“There was no misdirection in the summing-up to the jury and no representation of facts which can be relied upon as justifying the grant of leave to appeal”, said James, regarding Mr Justice Chapmanʼs summing up, but before long it would emerge that there were certainly facts that could justify not only granting leave to appeal, but quashing the convictions which had been secured by contemptible means.

Origins

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is over a quarter of a century old. It was established in 1986 by the Prosecution of Offences Act (1985), but why? Previously, the police were responsible not only for arresting suspects, but deciding whether they should be charged and prosecuted as well. It became clear that this was not an efficient system as inappropriate cases were prosecuted and occasionally cases that should have been prosecuted were not. An independent prosecuting authority was needed, but why then?

In part the answer lies in an egregious, but strangely neglected miscarriage of justice – a case that seemingly had it all. It was a nasty murder that involved a botched investigation by police and pathologists, shameful bullying of juvenile or otherwise vulnerable suspects, an intransigent criminal justice system and ultimate vindication of the wrongfully condemned. It was a case where tunnel vision overwhelmed the evidence-led approach, resulting in an egregious miscarriage of justice.

An Egregious Miscarriage of Justice

The Catford Three (Colin Lattimore, Ronald Leighton and Ahmet Salih) were wrongly convicted of the murder of mixed-race transvestite Maxwell Confait in November 1972. Eight months later their first appeal was rejected along with their claims of police brutality. A year later a change in government resulted in the convictions being referred back to the Court of Appeal.

By this time the scientific evidence – time of death – had collapsed. Professor Donald Teare put the time of death as significantly earlier, insisting that it must have been between 6.30-10.30. His distinguished colleague Professor Keith Simpson agreed. They would later be proved to be wrong by several hours, but that was no consolation to the police or prosecutor as their expert Professor James Cameron was even further out.

At the trial Cameron changed his time of death to possibly being as late as 1.00 a.m. – just 21 minutes before the fire was reported. This change of timing mangled the alibis of the three defendants who had prepared their defences for the earlier time of death that the police doctor and Cameron had previously said. That undermined the strength of alibis, especially Lattimore, who had a good alibi by ambush.

The retraction of their confessions counted for nought as well. They had been secured without a solicitor or even an appropriate adult being present. In 1975 the Court of Appeal quashed the convictions. Headed by Lord Justice (Sir Leslie) Scarman as he then was, the appeal judges criticised the policeʼs investigation and noted that the lack of injuries indicating a struggle suggested that Confait knew his killer.

Enquiries

Scarman took the rare step of declaring Lattimore, Leighton and Salih innocent. That prompted Roy Jenkins to re-open the inquiry, but Peter Fryer, who later became Assistant Chief Constable of West Mercia Police, failed to solve it. A full enquiry of the policing, especially regarding the effectiveness of the Judgeʼs Rules in the treatment of children and the vulnerable (then termed educationally sub-normal) was also ordered.

It was chaired by Mr Justice (Sir Henry) Fisher, who demanded and got the power to apportion guilt on the balance of probabilities if he wanted to – an outrageous concession that should never have been agreed to. Fisher made recommendations to the Judgeʼs Rules, but declared two of the Catford Three guilty.

He avoided libel proceedings as the report was returned to Parliament, which made it immune . It should not have been. Fisherʼs insistence on being allowed to declare people probably guilty when they were not should have had personal consequences, especially as the person responsible was a judge who should have known better – far better.

Fisherʼs serious error resulted in the Royal Commission of Criminal Procedure (1979-81). During that Commissionʼs investigation evidence emerged not only of the innocence of the Catford Three, but of who the real perpetrator was. Nevertheless, it was one that Fisher refused to apologise even when requested to by then Attorney General Sir Michael Havers.

Vindicated

That Royal Commission produced important legislation – the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) in 1984 and the Prosecution of Offences Act a year later. PACE became operational in 1986 and the Crown Prosecution Service was established that year as well. The CPS in particular would prove to be a terrible disappointment on many levels.

It also ended any doubt about the innocence or guilt of the Catford Three as it became an early vindication case – a miscarriage of justice that was resolved either by the conviction of the real killer, or if deceased by acceptance by the criminal justice system that the real perpetrator had been identified. That is what happened in this case.

The Royal Commissionʼs investigation established that Confait had in fact been murdered at least two days before the fire of April 22^nd 1972 which alerted police to Confaitʼs death. Professors Alan Usher and Keith Mant showed that through the discolouration of organs, which begs the question of how Cameron, Teare and Simpson – all distinguished forensic pathologists – missed something as obvious as that.

Detective Chief Superintendent E J George and Detective Chief Inspector Eddie Ellison identified not only the real murderer, but an accomplice and witness to the murder as well. They had interviewed Paul Pooley who admitted being in Confaitʼs Doggett Road abode when Douglas Franklin murdered the unfortunate Confait. Franklin, knowing the game was up, committed suicide shortly after being interviewed.

In February 1980 they presented their report to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Sir Michael Havers. It destroyed the case against Lattimore, Leighton and Salih once a,nd for all. Havers made a statement to Parliament declaring the three innocent in August 1980. They had been vindicated, but it would take more than five years for the legislation born of that tragedy to result in the ʻindependentʼ prosecuting body, the CPS, opening for business.

Origins

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is over a quarter of a century old. It was established in 1986 by the Prosecution of Offences Act (1985), but why? Previously, the police were responsible not only for arresting suspects, but deciding whether they should be charged and prosecuted as well. It became clear that this was not an efficient system as inappropriate cases were prosecuted and occasionally cases that should have been prosecuted were not. An independent prosecuting authority was needed, but why then?

In part the answer lies in an egregious, but strangely neglected miscarriage of justice – a case that seemingly had it all. It was a nasty murder that involved a botched investigation by police and pathologists, shameful bullying of juvenile or otherwise vulnerable suspects, an intransigent criminal justice system and ultimate vindication of the wrongfully condemned. It was a case where tunnel vision overwhelmed the evidence-led approach, resulting in an egregious miscarriage of justice.

An Egregious Miscarriage of Justice

The Catford Three (Colin Lattimore, Ronald Leighton and Ahmet Salih) were wrongly convicted of the murder of mixed-race transvestite Maxwell Confait in November 1972. Eight months later their first appeal was rejected along with their claims of police brutality. A year later a change in government resulted in the convictions being referred back to the Court of Appeal.

By this time the scientific evidence – time of death – had collapsed. Professor Donald Teare put the time of death as significantly earlier, insisting that it must have been between 6.30-10.30. His distinguished colleague Professor Keith Simpson agreed. They would later be proved to be wrong by several hours, but that was no consolation to the police or prosecutor as their expert Professor James Cameron was even further out.

At the trial Cameron changed his time of death to possibly being as late as 1.00 a.m. – just 21 minutes before the fire was reported. This change of timing mangled the alibis of the three defendants who had prepared their defences for the earlier time of death that the police doctor and Cameron had previously said. That undermined the strength of alibis, especially Lattimore, who had a good alibi by ambush.

The retraction of their confessions counted for nought as well. They had been secured without a solicitor or even an appropriate adult being present. In 1975 the Court of Appeal quashed the convictions. Headed by Lord Justice (Sir Leslie) Scarman as he then was, the appeal judges criticised the policeʼs investigation and noted that the lack of injuries indicating a struggle suggested that Confait knew his killer.

Enquiries

Scarman took the rare step of declaring Lattimore, Leighton and Salih innocent. That prompted Roy Jenkins to re-open the inquiry, but Peter Fryer, who later became Assistant Chief Constable of West Mercia Police, failed to solve it. A full enquiry of the policing, especially regarding the effectiveness of the Judgeʼs Rules in the treatment of children and the vulnerable (then termed educationally sub-normal) was also ordered.

It was chaired by Mr Justice (Sir Henry) Fisher, who demanded and got the power to apportion guilt on the balance of probabilities if he wanted to – an outrageous concession that should never have been agreed to. Fisher made recommendations to the Judgeʼs Rules, but declared two of the Catford Three guilty.

He avoided libel proceedings as the report was returned to Parliament, which made it immune . It should not have been. Fisherʼs insistence on being allowed to declare people probably guilty when they were not should have had personal consequences, especially as the person responsible was a judge who should have known better – far better.

Fisherʼs serious error resulted in the Royal Commission of Criminal Procedure (1979-81). During that Commissionʼs investigation evidence emerged not only of the innocence of the Catford Three, but of who the real perpetrator was. Nevertheless, it was one that Fisher refused to apologise even when requested to by then Attorney General Sir Michael Havers.

Vindicated

That Royal Commission produced important legislation – the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) in 1984 and the Prosecution of Offences Act a year later. PACE became operational in 1986 and the Crown Prosecution Service was established that year as well. The CPS in particular would prove to be a terrible disappointment on many levels.

It also ended any doubt about the innocence or guilt of the Catford Three as it became an early vindication case – a miscarriage of justice that was resolved either by the conviction of the real killer, or if deceased by acceptance by the criminal justice system that the real perpetrator had been identified. That is what happened in this case.

The Royal Commissionʼs investigation established that Confait had in fact been murdered at least two days before the fire of April 22^nd 1972 which alerted police to Confaitʼs death. Professors Alan Usher and Keith Mant showed that through the discolouration of organs, which begs the question of how Cameron, Teare and Simpson – all distinguished forensic pathologists – missed something as obvious as that.

Detective Chief Superintendent E J George and Detective Chief Inspector Eddie Ellison identified not only the real murderer, but an accomplice and witness to the murder as well. They had interviewed Paul Pooley who admitted being in Confaitʼs Doggett Road abode when Douglas Franklin murdered the unfortunate Confait. Franklin, knowing the game was up, committed suicide shortly after being interviewed.

In February 1980 they presented their report to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Sir Michael Havers. It destroyed the case against Lattimore, Leighton and Salih once and for all. Havers made a statement to Parliament declaring the three innocent in August 1980. They had been vindicated, but it would take more than five years for the legislation born of that tragedy to result in the ʻindependentʼ prosecuting body, the CPS, opening for business.

Inconvenient Evidence

The case of the Catford Three (Colin Lattimore, Ronald Leighton and Ahmet Salih) is now acknowledged as of Britain’s pivotal miscarriages of justice – one that changed the criminal justice system. Their alibis – Lattimoreʼs was particularly strong – were treated as little more than an inconvenience to be overcome and this appears to explain the forensic pathologist Professor James Cameronʼs sudden change of opinion regarding the time of death.

Outrageously, Cameron waited until the trial was under-way to inform the defence during his evidence that he had changed his mind. Lattimoreʼs lawyers had prepared their defence of alibi on what they had been informed was the time of death that the police and prosecution were relying on. It was all they could do.

Ambush

They had no time to prepare for this change in the prosecution case or even get expert opinion to counter it. They were ambushed by Cameronʼs shifting of the goalposts at trial. It was outrageous and the judge should not have allowed it and nor should the Court of Appeal. Twenty years later the Court of Appeal famously said that it does not allow convictions secured by ambush in the shameful case of Judith Ward.

In its way this was worse as it was not even concealed – it was brazen. The court actually witnessed the ambush in progress and not only tolerated it, but rewarded it with the prize the prosecution sought. After an 18 day trial in November 1972 Lattimore was convicted of manslaughter due to diminished responsibility and Leighton of murder – Salih of the offences he confessed to. Lattimore and Leighton were convicted of the other offences as well.

Outrageous

In November 1972 the three youngsters began their sentences. There was no indication that this would become one of the most important and notorious miscarriages of justice in British history – one that would command two major enquiries and usher in pivotal changes in the law, but there should have been. Cameronʼs shifting of the goalposts on the time of death was outrageous. It destroyed the alibi work the defence had conducted.

It was obvious that Cameron had not changed his mind by such a considerable amount of time when he gave evidence, so when had he come to that conclusion and why? There was another obvious problem with the previous time of death – the fire evidence. If the original time of death was correct it meant that the murderers had stayed around for almost three hours and then set the fire. Why would anyone do that?

Fair Trial?

Changing the time of death neatly avoided that question and avoided the obvious conclusion – the fire had nothing to do with the murder of Maxwell Confait whatsoever. Cameronʼs conduct had rendered a fair trial impossible. The trial should have been stopped immediately and the issue resolved before any retrial occurred. It did not. The fact that this was allowed to happen to children – treated as adults by the law – makes it even more unconscionable.

The Judgeʼs Rules were amended on the treatment of child suspects and on the vulnerable – then termed ʻeducationally sub-normalʼ, but nothing was done about Cameron’s late change of opinion. The Police And Criminal Evidence Act was a direct response to this case and the Prosecution of Offences Act facilitated the establishing of the Crown Prosecution Service as a result of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedures as well.

Shamefully, nothing was done to prevent expert prosecution witnesses ambushing children or even adults at trial. Lord Justice James, delivered the decision of the Court of Appeal in July 1973. It proved to be yet another wretched judgement betraying the arrogance and complacency of a system that believed itself infallible.

“There was no misdirection in the summing-up to the jury and no representation of facts which can be relied upon as justifying the grant of leave to appeal”, said James, regarding Mr Justice Chapmanʼs summing up, but before long it would emerge that there were certainly facts that could justify not only granting leave to appeal, but quashing the convictions which had been secured by contemptible means.