Presumed Guilty

“I don’t care about the money,” is a frequent refrain of the innocent. “I want my name back and an apology.” Usually they get neither, because miscarriage of justice organisations and campaigners still don’t get it. Quashing a conviction is no more than half the job. The criminal justice system does not care about guilt or innocence; it never did.

An acquittal at trial is nothing more than an admission that the prosecutor could not prove the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It is not a declaration of innocence. Appeal is no better. If a conviction is quashed, it meant that the conviction was found to be unsafe. That is not the same as a finding of innocence. Occasionally judges make sure that there is no doubt, by saying that they are not finding the appellant innocent. There is no verdict of innocence, yet that is demanded now in compensation claims.

Exoneration

Annette Hewins, Sion Jenkins, Barry George and Andrew Adams are part of a growing trend. Their convictions were quashed on appeal, yet none of them have received a penny in compensation because the Assessor decided that they had not been exonerated. The fact that there is no verdict at trial or appeal in British law that guarantees exoneration seems to have escaped politicians, eager to save pennies at the expense of those wronged by society.

The former Unionist MP, Lord John Laird, sought clarification. Laird asked the government to “issue a practice direction to criminal courts ensuring judges declare any defendant acquitted at trial, or appellant whose conviction has been quashed as unsafe on appeal, as innocent at the close of the court proceedings.”

He also asked the government “whether they will ensure that appropriate compensation and aftercare is provided to such persons?” His question and the subsequent answer from Lord Tom McNally, a Minister of State at the Ministry of justice were ignored by media expressing an interest now the Supreme Court is considering these issues.

Practice

“Practice directions in the criminal courts are a matter for the Lord Chief Justice, not the Government,” said McNally. “It has long been an important feature of our criminal justice system that a person charged with an offence is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty. A person found not guilty is to be treated as innocent, as too is a person whose conviction has been quashed on appeal.”

But the practice is different. Exoneration is required for compensation now. “A person whose conviction is quashed on appeal may apply for compensation under Section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Entitlement to compensation under that provision will be considered shortly by the Supreme Court in the case of Adams.”

Actually they can’t. The abolition of the Discretionary Scheme means that any person whose conviction is quashed in an in time first appeal will not qualify under Section 133. Even if there is no doubt about innocence whatsoever, they are not entitled to anything and the government not only knows it, but refused to right the wrong. The very same minister Lord McNally said as much previously when asked to restore the Discretionary Scheme by Lord Laird.

“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,” said McNally. “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.”

It also excludes anyone who had the temerity to be acquitted or have their convictions quashed on a first appeal even if they are proved innocent later by the conviction of the real perpetrator.

1 Mr Michael is now the Police and Crime Commissioner for South Wales. The position replaced Police Authorities with the exception of London, which transferred Police Authority powers to the Mayor of London.

]]> https://fittedin.org/fittedin/?feed=rss2&p=1032 0 https://fittedin.org/fittedin/?p=749 https://fittedin.org/fittedin/?p=749#comments Fri, 21 Nov 2014 15:45:44 +0000 http://fittedin.org/fittedin/?p=749 Read more]]> by Satish Sekar © Satish Sekar January 19^th 2009

The Review

The review of the error made by forensic scientist Sian Hedges, then of the Forensic Science Service (FSS), in the Damilola Taylor Inquiry after the conviction of the Preddie brothers (Ricky and Danny) for the manslaughter of Taylor served a purpose – a log and dishonourable one. It took the previous miscarriage of justice off the agenda for a while at least.

It was conducted by emeritus professor in forensic science at Strathclyde University Brian Caddy and Alan Rawley QC. Both were appointed by the Home Office because Hedges missed crucial blood-staining that originated from Taylor on clothing and footwear of the Preddie brothers during the original inquiry.

Terms of Reference

The terms of reference of the review were: to conduct a review of the forensic examination of evidence conducted by the FSS during the Damilola Taylor Inquiry; to establish an agreed set of facts and time-line of the FSS examination of this evidence and to make recommendations to the Home Secretary on whether re-examination of forensic evidence in other comparable cases is required.

It was also tasked to make recommendations to both the Home Secretary and board of the FSS on whether changes are required to its examination procedures, recruitment, training and management of forensic scientists by the FSS. Finally, it had the power to make whatever recommendations it deems necessary on the future role of the Forensic Regulator in overseeing applicable standards to all suppliers of forensic services to the criminal justice system within the UK.

ʻIndependentʼ

However, the ʻindependentʼ review did not specifically investigate whether Hedges committed perjury in the trial earlier this year that resulted in the acquittal of Hassan Jihad on all charges and the Preddie brothers of murder and robbery. It is also unsatisfactory as it does not view the case as an integrated whole.

The Sentamu Inquiry, which was chaired by the Archbishop of York John Sentamu, looked at the treatment of vulnerable witnesses in isolation and this did the same regarding the scientific evidence.

The review did not consider how the Damilola Taylor Inquiry was mishandled in the first place. Hedges’ error does not explain how the original defendants were allowed to stand trial in 2002. Despite being obliged to deliver best value, neither the Metropolitan Police, nor its police authority have any plans for an inquiry into what went wrong – errors that almost derailed justice permanently.

We should be told how relying on a clearly unreliable witness (Bromley) without testing how such a witness would stand up to cross-examination delivers best value to the public, rather than placing an inexcusable drain on public resources that could have been put to far better use. The role of the CPS needs to be scrutinised thoroughly.

Lack of Interest

There seems to be no interest to establish what went wrong in the original investigation beyond the scientific evidence. That will not suffice. Had wrongful convictions been obtained in the original trial through highly dubious methods there would have been no cold case review which discovered Hedges’ error and the truly guilty Preddie brothers would never have been brought to justice.

The original inquiry was riddled with errors and questionable conduct which included sending a round robin invitation to inmates at Feltham Young Offenders Institution to make incriminating remarks about the original defendants that might be used to convict them. There was a review into the use of child witnesses, but the original defendants were not invited to participate. They have never been given the opportunity to participate in these inquiries, let alone one that looks at the whole case in the light of knowledge that is now available.

]]> https://fittedin.org/fittedin/?feed=rss2&p=749 0 https://fittedin.org/fittedin/?p=747 https://fittedin.org/fittedin/?p=747#comments Fri, 21 Nov 2014 11:41:32 +0000 http://fittedin.org/fittedin/?p=747 Read more]]> by Satish Sekar © Satish Sekar (January 31^st 2009)

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.

Timings

In the early hours of April 22^nd 1972 a police surgeon pronounced mixed-race transvestite Maxwell Confait dead. A fire had just been extinguished at the Doggett Road residence in Catford, South-East London. This would prove to be one of Britain’s most shameful miscarriages of justice. The victim was unsympathetic as far as investigators and even the public were concerned and there were obvious angles to look into.

Establishing the time of death was important and the fire helped to do that, as long as it was linked to the murder. It was investigated as if that was a fact, but it wasn’t. The forensic pathology – horribly botched as it was – should have made that clear from the beginning. Somehow, the significance of it was missed by everyone.

The time of death – admittedly a range – was given as earlier that night by the distinguished forensic pathologist James Cameron, who would later be severely criticised for his role in one of Australiaʼs most notorious miscarriages of justice Lindy and Michael Chamberlain – the Dingo Baby case.

At the trial in November 1972 Cameron moved it even further, saying it could have been as late as just half an hour before the fire was extinguished. This was necessary to explain the inexplicable. Why had brutal killers stayed around for hours and then started a fire there? And then knowing that they had done this why had they started some more in that area, knowing it would draw attention to themselves. This was the breakthrough information that led to the arrests and interrogative strategy.

But it was completely wrong. The fire had nothing to do with the murder. Professor Cameron’s original opinion was wrong. His change of opinion at the trial turned out to be even further wide of the mark than he had previously been. While timing death is not an exact science, especially over 40 years ago, Cameron did not check the organ for discolouration. If he had done so he would have realised that the fire had occurred over two days after Maxwell Confait was murdered – this was badly botched by Cameron to put it mildly.

Expert Errors

Cameron would prove to have eminent company in getting the time of this death badly wrong. Professor Donald Teare was one Britainʼs most eminent forensic pathologists at the time and so was Professor Keith Simpson. Both were very experienced and had distinguished themselves in their chosen field, but they too were involved in an investigation of a miscarriage of justice – one of the most notorious miscarriages of justice in any jurisdiction – Timothy Evans – another vindication case¹. Evans was wrongfully convicted and hanged in 1950².

Teare was the main pathologist in that case, which became a cause célèbre three years later when a resident at the same address, John Christie was exposed as a depraved serial killer rather than the respectable witness he had been portrayed as at Evansʼ trial.His colleagues Francis Camps and Keith Simpson were also involved, but Teareʼs role was the most controversial and despite his attempts to put right the Confait case, his error – also made by Simpson and Cameron – was crass for experts of such standing.